Federal Register Vol. 82, No.101,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 101 (May 26, 2017)

Page Range24209-24454
FR Document

82_FR_101
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 24403 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 24275 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; U.S. Origin Health CertificatePDF
82 FR 24209 - Sequestration Order for Fiscal Year 2018 Pursuant to Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as AmendedPDF
82 FR 24425 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Richard Gerstl” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 24307 - Grant of Interim Extension of the Term of U.S. Patent No. 5,912,231; LOCILEX® (pexiganan)PDF
82 FR 24404 - Submission for Review: Life Insurance Election, Standard Form (SF) 2817PDF
82 FR 24389 - Renewal of Approved Information Collection; OMB Control No. 1004-0196PDF
82 FR 24279 - Black Hills National Forest Advisory BoardPDF
82 FR 24276 - Columbia County Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 24292 - 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft From Canada: Initiation of Countervailing Duty InvestigationPDF
82 FR 24277 - Deschutes Provincial Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 24276 - Notice of Proposed New Fee Sites; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement ActPDF
82 FR 24276 - Notice of New Fee SitesPDF
82 FR 24327 - Applications for New Awards; Supporting Effective Educator Development Program; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 24425 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Request for Advisory OpinionPDF
82 FR 24424 - Determination and Certification Under Section 40A of the Arms Export Control ActPDF
82 FR 24278 - Notice of Proposed New Fee SitePDF
82 FR 24453 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple Tax and Trade Bureau Information Collection RequestsPDF
82 FR 24350 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 24425 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Hashem Safieddine, aka Hashem Safi al-Din, aka Hashem Safi a-Din, aka Hashim Safi al Din, aka Hashim Safi Al-Din, aka Hashim Safieddine as a Specially Designated Global TerroristPDF
82 FR 24278 - Notice of New Fee SitePDF
82 FR 24425 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Muhammad Ahmad 'Ali al-Isawi, aka Abu Osama al-Masri, aka Abu Usamah al-Masri as a Specially Designated Global TerroristPDF
82 FR 24401 - Proposed Submission Guidelines for Development Proposals Subject to Statutorily-Mandated Plan and Project ReviewPDF
82 FR 24277 - Lyon-Mineral Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 24345 - EPA's Proposed Modeling Approaches for a Health-Based Benchmark for Lead in Drinking Water-Final List of Peer Reviewers, Final Charge Questions and Notice of the Public Peer Review MeetingPDF
82 FR 24344 - Notification of a Public Meeting of the Great Lakes Advisory BoardPDF
82 FR 24445 - Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology; University Transportation Centers (UTC) Program, Competition for Regions 1, 2, and 3PDF
82 FR 24345 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 24377 - Proposed Changes to the Methodology Used for Estimating Fair Market RentsPDF
82 FR 24310 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 24309 - Procurement List; Addition and DeletionPDF
82 FR 24308 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionsPDF
82 FR 24248 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Champlain, North Hero Island, VTPDF
82 FR 24317 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 24397 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
82 FR 24424 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB ReviewPDF
82 FR 24402 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
82 FR 24405 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 24411 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 24398 - 60-Day Notice for Extension of Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
82 FR 24360 - National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 24359 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 24363 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 24359 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 24363 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 24358 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 24360 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 24358 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 24346 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 24396 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control No. 1010-0187; Project Planning for Use of OCS Sand, Gravel, and Shell Resources in Construction Projects That Qualify for a Negotiated Noncompetitive AgreementPDF
82 FR 24329 - Nuclear Energy Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 24328 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Integrated Partner Management (IPM) SystemPDF
82 FR 24328 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2017-2019PDF
82 FR 24291 - University of California, Riverside, et al. Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron MicroscopePDF
82 FR 24291 - Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From India: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015PDF
82 FR 24301 - Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China and Taiwan: Continuation of Antidumping Duty OrdersPDF
82 FR 24249 - July 2017 Revision of Patent Cooperation Treaty ProceduresPDF
82 FR 24211 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat PumpsPDF
82 FR 24218 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool PumpsPDF
82 FR 24214 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Miscellaneous Refrigeration ProductsPDF
82 FR 24330 - Notice of Petition for Waiver of AHT Cooling Systems GmbH and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc. From the Department of Energy Commercial Refrigerator, Freezer, and Refrigerator-Freezer Test Procedures and Partial Granting of an Interim WaiverPDF
82 FR 24384 - Notice of Realty Action: Competitive Sale of 17 Parcels of Public Land in Clark County, NVPDF
82 FR 24400 - Notice of Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 24400 - Certain Krill Oil Products and Krill Meal for Production of Krill Oil Products; Notice of Commission Determination (1) Not to Review an Initial Determination Granting-in-Part an Unopposed Motion To Terminate the Investigation Based on Withdrawal of the Complaint as to Certain Respondents and (2) Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting an Unopposed Motion To Terminate the Investigation Based on a Settlement Agreement as to the Remaining Respondent; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
82 FR 24253 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Exchange of Flatfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management AreaPDF
82 FR 24326 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 24336 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC Form 73 & FERC-600); Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 24340 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
82 FR 24339 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
82 FR 24249 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Neponset River, Boston, MAPDF
82 FR 24248 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Charles River, Boston, MAPDF
82 FR 24249 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cerritos Channel, Long Beach, CAPDF
82 FR 24381 - Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
82 FR 24377 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, Without Change, of an Existing Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 24349 - Information Collection; Service Contracts Reporting RequirementsPDF
82 FR 24290 - Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments; Survey: Expenditures Incurred by Recipients of Biomedical Research and Development Awards From the National Institutes of Health (NIH)PDF
82 FR 24356 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Adverse Event Program for Medical Devices (Medical Product Safety Network)PDF
82 FR 24233 - Special Conditions: The Boeing Company, Model 787-9 Series Airplanes; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 24231 - Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc., Model 700 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 24225 - Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc., Model 680 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 24222 - Special Conditions: Embraer S. A., Model EMB-550 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 24228 - Special Conditions: Airbus, Model A330-300 Series Airplanes; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 24394 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1024-0252; The Interagency Access Pass and Senior Pass Application ProcessesPDF
82 FR 24390 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1024-0233; National Park Service Leasing ProgramPDF
82 FR 24392 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1024-0022; Backcountry/Wilderness Use PermitPDF
82 FR 24395 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1024-0021; National Capital Region Application for Public GatheringPDF
82 FR 24406 - TICC Capital Corp., et al.PDF
82 FR 24384 - Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Home-Living Programs and School Closure and ConsolidationPDF
82 FR 24383 - Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Application for Job Placement and Training ServicesPDF
82 FR 24304 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous FishPDF
82 FR 24342 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 24344 - Reliability Technical Conference; Supplemental Notice of Technical ConferencePDF
82 FR 24343 - Lyonsdale Associates, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Protests and Motions To IntervenePDF
82 FR 24342 - Duke Energy Indiana, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
82 FR 24339 - PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Midcontinent Independent System Operator Inc.; PJM Transmission Owners; Notice of WorkshopPDF
82 FR 24341 - Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice Revising Comment DatePDF
82 FR 24338 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 24340 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 24351 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Applications for Food and Drug Administration Approval To Market a New DrugPDF
82 FR 24357 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Import Trade Auxiliary Communication SystemPDF
82 FR 24368 - Accreditation and Approval of Saybolt LP as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
82 FR 24366 - Accreditation and Approval of Amspec Services, LLC, as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
82 FR 24365 - Accreditation and Approval of AmSpec Services, LLC, as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
82 FR 24364 - Accreditation and Approval of Saybolt LP as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
82 FR 24366 - Accreditation of Nexeo Solutions LLC, as a Commercial LaboratoryPDF
82 FR 24364 - Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
82 FR 24369 - Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
82 FR 24367 - Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
82 FR 24358 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 24412 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt the CHX Liquidity Enhancing Access DelayPDF
82 FR 24310 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 24370 - Quarterly IRS Interest Rates Used in Calculating Interest on Overdue Accounts and Refunds on Customs DutiesPDF
82 FR 24242 - Addition of Certain Persons and Revisions to Entries on the Entity ListPDF
82 FR 24454 - Notice of Open Public HearingPDF
82 FR 24303 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 24303 - Science Advisory BoardPDF
82 FR 24404 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 24418 - Corporate Capital Trust, Inc., et al.PDF
82 FR 24401 - Business and Operations Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 24402 - Proposal Review Panel for Physics; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 24417 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Exposure Periods of the Automated Improvement Mechanism and the Solicitation Auction MechanismPDF
82 FR 24447 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Forms 1065, 1065-B, 1066, 1120, 1120-C, 1120-F, 1120-FSC, 1120-H, 1120-L, 1120-ND, 1120-PC, 1120-POL, 1120-S, 1120-SF, 1120-REIT, 1120-RIC, and Related AttachmentsPDF
82 FR 24306 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Processed Products Family of FormsPDF
82 FR 24279 - Solicitation of Commodity Board Topics and Contribution of Funding Under the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants ProgramPDF
82 FR 24387 - Notice of Availability of the Proposed Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Monument Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement, IdahoPDF
82 FR 24306 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 24281 - Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA) for the Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI) for Fiscal Year 2017PDF
82 FR 24303 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 24302 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 24430 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
82 FR 24428 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
82 FR 24427 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
82 FR 24432 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
82 FR 24363 - Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 24424 - U.S. National Commission for UNESCO Notice of Teleconference MeetingPDF
82 FR 24434 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; DiabetesPDF
82 FR 24438 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
82 FR 24433 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of a Currently-Approved Information Collection Request: Hazardous Materials Safety PermitsPDF
82 FR 24437 - Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC); Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 24307 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ActionsPDF
82 FR 24301 - Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Turkey: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2016PDF
82 FR 24266 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Midland, TX and Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Odessa, TX and Midland, TXPDF
82 FR 24296 - 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft From Canada: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value InvestigationPDF
82 FR 24325 - Availability of a Final Feasibility Study With Integrated Environmental Impact Statement, Ala Wai Canal Project, Oahu, HIPDF
82 FR 24255 - Walnuts Grown in California; Proposed Amendment to Marketing Order 984 and Referendum OrderPDF
82 FR 24265 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, New Bern, NCPDF
82 FR 24271 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace for Oskaloosa, IAPDF
82 FR 24262 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan EnginesPDF
82 FR 24257 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Turbofan EnginesPDF
82 FR 24236 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Turbofan EnginesPDF
82 FR 24273 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Ashburn, GAPDF
82 FR 24241 - Amendment of Class D Airspace; Kingsville, TXPDF
82 FR 24268 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Johnson City, TNPDF
82 FR 24269 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Fort Knox, KY, and Louisville, KYPDF
82 FR 24260 - Airworthiness Directives; B/E Aerospace Protective Breathing Equipment Part Number 119003-11 and Part Number 119003-21PDF
82 FR 24239 - Airworthiness Directives; Stemme AG GlidersPDF
82 FR 24374 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 24371 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 24322 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 24314 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 24319 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 24312 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF

Issue

82 101 Friday, May 26, 2017 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Marketing and Referendum Orders; Amendments: Walnuts Grown in California, 24255-24257 2017-10676 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

See

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

See

Rural Housing Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: U.S. Origin Health Certificate, 24275-24276 2017-11077 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24350-24351 2017-10944 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Cerritos Channel, Long Beach, CA, 24249 2017-10854 Charles River, Boston, MA, 24248 2017-10855 Lake Champlain, North Hero Island, VT, 24248 2017-10899 Neponset River, Boston, MA, 24249 2017-10856 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Analysis Bureau

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 24308-24310 2017-10901 2017-10902 Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

See

Navy Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24310 2017-10806 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Service Contracts Reporting Requirements, 24349-24350 2017-10849 Arms Sales, 24310-24325 2017-09640 2017-09641 2017-09646 2017-09654 2017-10898 2017-10903
Economic Analysis Bureau Economic Analysis Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Survey: Expenditures Incurred by Recipients of Biomedical Research and Development Awards from the National Institutes of Health, 24290-24291 2017-10846 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Integrated Partner Management System, 24328-24329 2017-10876 National Assessment of Educational Progress 2017-2019, 24328 2017-10875 Applications for New Awards: Supporting Effective Educator Development Program; Correction, 24327 2017-10950 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps, 24218-24221 2017-10868 Energy Conservation Standards for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products, 24214-24218 2017-10867 Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 24211-24214 2017-10869 NOTICES Meetings: Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee, 24329 2017-10877
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Petitions for Waivers: AHT Cooling Systems GmbH and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc., 24330-24336 2017-10865 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Ala Wai Canal Project, Oahu, HI, 24325-24326 2017-10719 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, 24345 2017-10922 Meetings: Great Lakes Advisory Board, 24344-24345 2017-10932 Proposed Modeling Approaches for a Health-Based Benchmark for Lead in Drinking Water-Final List of Peer Reviewers, Final Charge Questions and Notice of the Public Peer Review Meeting, 24345-24346 2017-10933 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd and Co KG Turbofan Engines, 24236-24239 2017-10437 Stemme AG Gliders, 24239-24241 2017-10402 Class D Airspace; Amendments: Kingsville, TX, 24241-24242 2017-10429 Special Conditions: Airbus, Model A330-300 Series Airplanes; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 24228-24230 2017-10839 Embraer S. A., Model EMB-550 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 24222-24224 2017-10840 Textron Aviation Inc., Model 680 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 24225-24227 2017-10841 Textron Aviation Inc., Model 700 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 24231-24233 2017-10842 The Boeing Company, Model 787-9 Series Airplanes; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 24233-24236 2017-10843 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: B/E Aerospace Protective Breathing Equipment Part Number 119003-11 and Part Number 119003-21, 24260-24262 2017-10409 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd and Co KG Turbofan Engines, 24257-24260 2017-10439 Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines, 24262-24264 2017-10440 Class D and Class E Airspace; Amendments: Fort Knox, KY, and Louisville, KY, 24269-24271 2017-10427 New Bern, NC, 24265-24266 2017-10555 Class E Airspace and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Amendments: Midland, TX; Odessa, TX and Midland, TX, 24266-24268 2017-10740 Class E Airspace; Amendments: Oskaloosa, IA, 24271-24273 2017-10553 Class E Airspace; Establishments: Ashburn, GA, 24273-24274 2017-10432 Johnson City, TN, 24268-24269 2017-10428 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 24371-24377 2017-10167 2017-10179 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24336-24338 2017-10859 Applications: Duke Energy Indiana, LLC, 24342 2017-10823 Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Revision of Comment Date, 24341-24342 2017-10821 Combined Filings, 24338-24343 2017-10819 2017-10820 2017-10826 2017-10857 2017-10858 Hydroelectric Applications: Lyonsdale Associates, LLC, 24343-24344 2017-10824 Meetings: PJM Interconnection, LLC, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., PJM Transmission Owners; Workshop, 24339 2017-10822 Reliability Technical Conference, 24344 2017-10825 Federal Housing Finance Agency Federal Housing Finance Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24346-24349 2017-10879 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Hazardous Materials Safety Permits, 24433-24434 2017-10762 Meetings: Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee, 24437-24438 2017-10761 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes, 24434-24437 2017-10766 Diabetes Mellitus, 24438-24445 2017-10764 Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, 24432-24433 2017-10770 Vision, 24427-24432 2017-10771 2017-10772 2017-10773 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered Species Permits; Applications, 24381-24383 2017-10853 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Adverse Event Program for Medical Devices, 24356 2017-10844 Applications for Food and Drug Administration Approval to Market a New Drug, 24351-24356 2017-10818 Import Trade Auxiliary Communication System, 24357 2017-10817 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board, 24279 2017-10959 Columbia County Resource Advisory Committee, 24276 2017-10958 Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee, 24277-24278 2017-10954 Lyon-Mineral Resource Advisory Committee, 24277 2017-10936 New Fee Sites, 24276-24279 2017-10941 2017-10947 2017-10951 New Fee Sites: Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, 24276 2017-10953 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Service Contracts Reporting Requirements, 24349-24350 2017-10849 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24358 2017-10808
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

See

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Proposed Changes to the Methodology Used for Estimating Fair Market Rents, 24377-24381 2017-10907 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Home-Living Programs and School Closure and Consolidation, 24384 2017-10829 Job Placement and Training Services, 24383-24384 2017-10828 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Addition of Certain Persons and Revisions to Entries on the Entity List, 24242-24248 2017-10804 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24447-24453 2017-10789 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: 100- To 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada, 24292-24296 2017-10957 Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan, 24301-24302 2017-10871 Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from India, 24291-24292 2017-10873 Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, 24301 2017-10758 Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments; Applications: University of California, Riverside, et al.; Electron Microscope, 24291 2017-10874 Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations: 100- To 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada, 24296-24301 2017-10733 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 24398-24400 2017-10889 Complaints: Certain Bar Code Readers, Scan Engines, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, 24397-24398 2017-10897 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Krill Oil Products and Krill Meal for Production of Krill Oil Products; Termination of the Investigation, 24400 2017-10862 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24389-24390 2017-10960 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Proposed Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Monument Management Plan Amendment; Idaho, 24387-24389 2017-10779 Realty Actions: Competitive Sale of 17 Parcels of Public Land in Clark County, NV, 24384-24387 2017-10864 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24400-24401 2017-10863 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Service Contracts Reporting Requirements, 24349-24350 2017-10849 National Capital National Capital Planning Commission NOTICES Submission Guidelines: Development Proposals Subject to Statutorily-Mandated Plan and Project Review, 24401 2017-10937 National Institute Food National Institute of Food and Agriculture NOTICES Solicitation of Commodity Board Topics and Contribution of Funding Under the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program, 24279-24281 2017-10782 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 24358-24363 2017-10880 2017-10881 2017-10882 National Cancer Institute, 24358 2017-10883 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 24359 2017-10885 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 24363 2017-10886 National Institute of Mental Health, 24359 2017-10887 National Institute of Nursing Research, 24360 2017-10888 National Institute on Aging, 24363 2017-10884 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Exchange of Flatfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 24253-24254 2017-10861 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Processed Products Family of Forms, 24306 2017-10787 Endangered and Threatened Species: Takes of Anadromous Fish, 24304-24306 2017-10827 Meetings: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 24303 2017-10799 New England Fishery Management Council, 24303, 24306-24307 2017-10775 2017-10778 Science Advisory Board, 24303-24304 2017-10798 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 24302 2017-10774 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Backcountry/Wilderness Use Permit, 24392-24393 2017-10832 National Capital Region Application for Public Gathering, 24395-24396 2017-10831 National Park Service Leasing Program, 24390-24392 2017-10833 The Interagency Access Pass and Senior Pass Application Processes, 24394-24395 2017-10834 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Business and Operations Advisory Committee, 24401-24402 2017-10792 Proposal Review Panel for Physics, 24402 2017-10791 National Women's National Women's Business Council NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24402-24403 2017-10894 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24326-24327 2017-10860 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 24403 2017-11033 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Project Planning for Use of OCS Sand, Gravel, and Shell Resources in Construction Projects that Qualify for a Negotiated Noncompetitive Agreement, 24396-24397 2017-10878 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 24403-24404 2017-11109 Patent Patent and Trademark Office RULES July 2017 Revision of Patent Cooperation Treaty Procedures, 24249-24253 2017-10870 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Actions, 24307-24308 2017-10759 Patent Term Extensions: LOCILEX (pexiganan), 24307 2017-10964 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Life Insurance Election, 24404 2017-10963 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 24404 2017-10796 2017-10797 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act; Sequestration Order for Fiscal Year 2018 (Order of May 23, 2017), 24209 2017-11076 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service NOTICES Requests for Applications: Rural Community Development Initiative for Fiscal Year 2017, 24281-24290 2017-10776 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24405-24406, 24411-24412 2017-10793 2017-10794 2017-10890 2017-10891 2017-10892 2017-10893 Applications: Corporate Capital Trust, Inc., et al., 24418-24424 2017-10795 TICC Capital Corp., et al., 24406-24411 2017-10830 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 24417-24418 2017-10790 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 24412-24417 2017-10807 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24424 2017-10896 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Request for Advisory Opinion, 24425-24427 2017-10949 Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Richard Gerstl Exhibition, 24425 2017-11050 Designations as Global Terrorists: Hashem Safieddine, aka Hashem Safi al-Din, aka Hashem Safi a-Din, aka Hashim Safi al Din, aka Hashim Safi Al-Din, aka Hashim Safieddine, 24425 2017-10943 Muhammad Ahmad 'Ali al-Isawi, aka Abu Osama al-Masri, aka Abu Usamah al-Masri, 24425 2017-10939 Determination and Certification Under Section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act, 24424 2017-10948 Meetings: U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, 24424 2017-10768 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 24363 2017-10769 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

NOTICES Funding Availability: University Transportation Centers Program, 24445-24447 2017-10927
Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24453-24454 2017-10945
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Commercial Gaugers and Laboratories; Accreditations and Approvals: AmSpec Services, LLC, 24365-24367 2017-10814 2017-10815 Inspectorate America Corp., 24364-24365, 24367-24370 2017-10809 2017-10810 2017-10811 Nexeo Solutions LLC, 24366 2017-10812 Saybolt LP, 24364, 24368-24369 2017-10813 2017-10816 Quarterly IRS Interest Rates Used in Calculating Interest on Overdue Accounts and Refunds on Customs Duties, 24370-24371 2017-10805 Immigration U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24377 2017-10852 U.S. China U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission NOTICES Hearings, 24454 2017-10800 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.

82 101 Friday, May 26, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048] RIN 1904-AD37 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Confirmation of effective date and compliance date for direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

On January 6, 2017, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) published in the Federal Register a direct final rule to establish new energy conservation standards for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE has determined that the comments received in response to that direct final rule do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing it. Therefore, DOE is providing notice confirming the adoption of the energy conservation standards established in that direct final rule and announces the effective dates of those standards.

DATES:

The direct final rule for residential air conditioners and heat pumps published on January 6, 2017 (82 FR 1786) became effective on May 8, 2017. Compliance with the residential air conditioners and heat pumps standards in the direct final rule will be required on January 1, 2023.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

The docket Web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048. The docket web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to review the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by email: [email protected]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Antonio Bouza, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4563. Email: [email protected]

Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Authority

As amended by the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015), the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA” or, in context, “the Act”), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), authorizes DOE to issue a direct final rule establishing an energy conservation standard for a product on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) as determined by the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”). That statement must contain recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. A notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must be published simultaneously with the direct final rule and a public comment period of at least 110 days provided. 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, if DOE receives one or more adverse comments or an alternative joint recommendation is received relating to the direct final rule, the Secretary must determine whether the comments or alternative recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable law.

When making a determination whether to withdraw a direct final rule, DOE considers the substance, rather than the quantity, of comments. To this end, DOE weighs the substance of any adverse comment(s) received against the anticipated benefits of the consensus recommendations and the likelihood that further consideration of the comment(s) would change the results of the rulemaking. DOE notes that to the extent an adverse comment had been previously raised and addressed in the rulemaking proceeding, such a submission will not typically provide a basis for withdrawal of a direct final rule. If the Secretary makes such a determination, DOE must withdraw the direct final rule and proceed with the simultaneously published NOPR. DOE must publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the direct final rule was withdrawn.

DOE determined that it did not receive any adverse comments providing a basis for withdrawal as described above for the direct final rule that is the subject of this document—residential central air conditioners (“CACs”) and heat pumps (“HPs”). As such, DOE did not withdraw the direct final rule and allowed it to go final on its effective date. Although not required under EPCA, DOE customarily publishes a summary of the comments received during the 110-day comment period and its responses to those comments.1 This document contains such a summary, as well as DOE's responses.

1See, e.g., Notice of effective date and compliance dates for direct final rule, 76 FR 67037 (Oct. 31, 2011).

II. Background

During the rulemaking proceeding to consider amended energy conservation standards for CACs and HPs, DOE received a statement submitted by an Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) that a consensus had been reached by a negotiated rulemaking working group for CACs and HPs (the “the CAC/HP Working Group” or, in context, the “Working Group”). The CAC/HP Working Group consisted of 15 members, including one member from ASRAC and one DOE representative, with the balance comprising representatives of manufacturers of the covered products at issue, efficiency advocates, and utility representatives. The CAC/HP Working Group submitted to ASRAC a Term Sheet, that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), and ASRAC voted unanimously to adopt these consensus recommendations. (CAC/HP Term Sheet, Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048, No. 0076)

After careful consideration of the Term Sheet related to amended energy conservation standards for CACs and HPs, the Secretary has determined that the recommendations contained therein are compliant with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), and were submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of relevant points of view on this matter, as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i) for the issuance of a direct final rule.

DOE conducted separate test procedure rulemakings simultaneously with the energy conservation standard rulemaking to amend the DOE central air conditioners and heat pumps test procedure. As per the request of the CAC/HP Working Group, the analyses documented in this direct final rule are based on the DOE test procedure at the time of the 2015-2016 Negotiations. Efficiency levels selected on the basis of these analyses were then translated to efficiency levels based on the amended test procedure. This methodology was first advocated by Carrier/United Technologies Corporation (“UTC”) and adopted by stakeholders during the Negotiations. (ASRAC Public Meeting, No. 87 at p. 48) This methodology is also reflected in the CAC/HP Term Sheet. Thus, DOE notes that while amended standard levels presented in Table III-1 in this notice (and in the Table I-1 of the direct final rule) are in terms of the test procedure that was in place at the time of the CAC/HP Working Group Negotiations, the standard levels added to the regulatory text are in terms of the test procedure as amended.

Ultimately, DOE found that the standard levels recommended in the Term Sheet would result in significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and economically justified. Table II-1 documents the amended standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps based on the DOE test procedure at the time of the 2015-2016 Negotiations. The amended standards correspond to the recommended trial standard level (“TSL”) and are expressed in terms of Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (“SEER”), Energy Efficiency Ratio (“EER”), and Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (“HSPF”). The amended standards are the same as those recommended by the Working Group. These amended standards will apply to all central air conditioners and heat pumps listed in Table II-1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on January 1, 2023. The amended standards listed in Table II-1 will result in less energy consumption for these products than the current standards, which remain in effect until January 1, 2023.

Table II-1—Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Based on the DOE Test Procedure at the Time of the 2015-2016 Negotiations [Recommended TSL] Product class National SEER HSPF Southeast * SEER Southwest ** SEER EER Split-System Air Conditioners with a Certified Cooling Capacity <45,000 Btu/h 14 15 15 *** 12.2/10.2 Split-System Air Conditioners with a Certified Cooling Capacity ≥45,000 Btu/h 14 14.5 14.5 *** 11.7/10.2 Split-System Heat Pumps 15 8.8 Single-Package Air Conditioners † 14 11.0 Single-Package Heat Pumps † 14 8.0 Space-Constrained Air Conditioners † 12 Space-Constrained Heat Pumps † 12 7.4 Small-Duct High-Velocity Systems † 12 7.2 * Southeast includes: The states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories. ** Southwest includes the states of Arizona, California, Nevada, and New Mexico. *** The 10.2 EER amended energy conservation standard applies to split-system air conditioners with a seasonal energy efficiency ratio greater than or equal to 16. † The energy conservation standards for single-package, small-duct high-velocity and space-constrained product classes remain unchanged from current levels. III. Comments on the CAC/HP Direct Final Rule

Of the 24 substantive comments received in response to the direct final rule, 20 were from interested parties that expressed support for the direct final rule and its outcome. (All comments are available for public viewing at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048.) Among these commenters, eight manufacturers and one trade group all commented positively on finalizing the rule based on manufacturing certainty.

Three consumer groups, three utility representatives, three State representatives, and six environmental advocacy groups all commented in support of the significant economic benefits to consumers and ratepayers that the direct final rule would provide. In particular, the three consumer groups stated that that withdrawing the rule would increase the cost to taxpayers in initiating further rulemaking activity. The consumer groups also pointed out that life-cycle cost savings published in the direct final rule are realized in every region of the country and that total cost of ownership is lower with the amended standard. The utility representatives, states, and environmental advocates agreed, observing that the lower standard in the northern climate would alleviate costs to those customers, while the EER requirement in the hot southwest would reduce stress on the grid and other reliability problems with peak demand. The environmental advocates suggested that DOE had underestimated the benefits of the rule to consumers, due to the alignment of the refrigerant phase-outs.

Other interested parties submitted comments that did not support the CAC/HP direct final rule. The following sections discuss these specific comments and DOE's determination that the comments do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule.

A. Manufactured Housing

DOE received a comment from a manufacturer that attended many of the Working Group meetings. The manufacturer stated in its comments that it supported the rule generally but that the Working Group and the direct final rule should have excluded manufactured housing air conditioners based on the niche nature of the product and the potential inability of these products to meet the adopted efficiency levels. In response, DOE notes that the Working Group discussed this issue in detail. In recognition of the unique installation characteristics of manufactured home products that impact efficiency, the Working Group agreed to amend the accompanying test procedure to the direct final rule to require a lower default fan power value for manufactured homes (406 W/1000 CFM) compared to more conventional products addressed by the direct final rule (i.e. split systems). This difference will enable manufacturers of these products to obtain more representative results under the modified test procedure by accounting for the unique characteristics of these systems—the net effect of which would be to mitigate the penalizing effect of the current procedure. DOE proposed the new, unique default fan power value for manufactured home products in a related August 2016 CAC/TP test procedure supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking and received comments in support of its approach from other manufacturers of manufactured housing air conditioners, leading it to finalize it in the January 2017 CAC/HP test procedure final rule. See 82 FR 1426 (Jan. 5, 2017). Thus, because the comment has already been accounted for in other rulemaking proceedings, DOE does not consider this comment to provide a basis for withdrawal.

B. Cost/Benefit Analysis

Two think tanks and one individual generally commented that the costs (regulatory and consumer) published in the CAC/HP direct final rule were too high. In particular, one commenter suggested that the high conversion costs required from manufacturers could result in an INPV decline and manufacturers would move production outside the United States. Two other commenters noted that consumers could see price increases in central air conditioners due to higher installed costs; one commenter additionally noted that the percent of negatively impacted consumers did not justify the TSL levels published in the CAC/HP direct final rule. Finally, one commenter stated that DOE did not meet the rebuttable presumption laid out in EPCA.

In response, DOE notes that all of these issues were discussed in detail during the Working Group negotiations. Those discussions recognized that, although consumers in some regions would bear a higher net cost than consumers in other regions, the national average at the recommended TSL is cost-justified when examining the standard articulated in the direct final rule as a whole. DOE notes that EPCA does not require it to choose the standard level with the least consumer cost, or the least cost to manufacturers, but only to assess those, among other costs and benefits (using the 7 factors articulated at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) and determine whether the burdens outweigh the benefits. In this case, the recommended TSL met that standard, and DOE's analysis and conclusions would not change based on the comments received. Thus, DOE does not consider these comments to provide a basis to justify a withdrawal of this direct final rule under EPCA.

C. Consumer Groups as Interested Parties

DOE received a comment from an individual who commented that consumers and those representing consumers' interests did not have input in the rulemaking process, and thus the Working Group Term Sheet was not a “statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view.” In response, DOE disagrees and believes that (1) consumers' interests were represented in the rulemaking process and; (2) that the Working Group Term Sheet was a consensus recommendation made by interested persons fairly representative of relevant points of view. Although consumer groups were not direct signatories to the Term Sheet, the ASRAC Committee approving the CAC/HP Working Group's recommendations included one member representing Consumers' Union. In addition, representatives of State governments participated in the Working Group, who directly represent the consumers that live in those states. DOE also received many comments from members of the public and other consumer advocacy groups in support of the direct final rule.

IV. Department of Justice Analysis of Competitive Impacts

EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from new or amended standards. It also directs the Attorney General of the United States (“Attorney General”) to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) For the direct final rule discussed in this document, DOE published a NOPR containing energy conservation standards identical to those set forth the direct final rule and transmitted a copy of the direct final rule and the accompanying technical support document (“TSD”) to the Attorney General, requesting that the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE has published DOJ's comments at the end of this document.

DOJ reviewed the new standards in the direct final rule and the direct final rule TSD discussed in this document. As a result of its analysis, DOJ concluded that the new standards issued in this direct final rule are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. DOJ further noted that the standards established in this direct final rule were the same as recommended standards submitted in the consensus recommendations signed by industry participants who believed they could meet the standards (as well as other interested parties).

V. Social Cost of Carbon

DOE notes that the direct final rule discussed in this notice preceded Executive Order 13783's requirement to revise future analyses involving carbon monetization. See 82 FR 16093 (March 31, 2017). The direct final rule included an analysis that examined the impacts associated with the social cost of carbon. These values, which were ancillary to the primary analyses that DOE conducted to determine whether the standards adopted in the rule were justified under the statutory criteria prescribed under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), did not change the results of DOE's analyses. Accordingly, while the inclusion of these values helped in providing additional detail regarding the impacts from the rule, those details played no role in determining the outcome of DOE's decision under EPCA.

VI. National Environmental Policy Act

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), DOE has determined that this direct final rule fits within the category of actions included in Categorical Exclusion (“CX”) B5.1 and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). This rule fits within the category of actions because it is a rulemaking establishing energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, and for which none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for them. DOE's CX determination that applies to this direct final rule is available at http://energy.gov/nepa/categorical-exclusion-cx-determinations-cx.

VII. Conclusion

In summary, based on the discussion above, DOE has determined that the comments received in response to the direct final rule for new energy conservation standards for CAC and HPs do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule. As a result, the energy conservation standards set forth in this direct final rule became effective on May 8, 2017. Compliance with the standards articulated in this direct final rule will be required on January 1, 2023.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 22, 2017. Daniel R Simmons, Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Appendix [The following letter will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations] U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division BRENT SNYDER Acting Assistant Attorney General Main Justice Building 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2401/(202) 616-2645 (Fax) March 7, 2017 Daniel Cohen Assistant General Counsel Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585

Dear Assistant General Counsel Cohen:

I am responding to your January 13, 2017, letter seeking the views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of proposed energy conservation standards for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps. Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (ECPA), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 43 U.S.C. 6316(a), which requires the Attorney General to make a determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy conservation standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to requests from other departments about the effect of a program on competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR § 0.40(g). In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by substantially limiting consumer choice or increasing industry concentration. A lessening of competition could result in higher prices to manufacturers and consumers.

We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the Direct Final Rule (82 Fed. Reg. 1786, January 6, 2017). We have also reviewed supplementary information submitted to the Attorney General by the Department of Energy. Based on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy conservation standards for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition.

Sincerely, Brent Snyder.
[FR Doc. 2017-10869 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043] RIN 1904-AC51 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Confirmation of effective date and compliance date for direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

On October 28, 2016, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) published in the Federal Register a direct final rule to establish new energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products. DOE has determined that the comments received in response to that direct final rule do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing it. Therefore, DOE is providing notice confirming the adoption of the energy conservation standards established in that direct final rule and announces the effective date of those standards.

DATES:

The direct final rule for miscellaneous refrigeration products published on October 28, 2016 (81 FR 75194) became effective on February 27, 2017. Compliance with the new standards in the direct final rule will be required on October 28, 2019, as set forth in Table II.1 and Table II.2 in section II of the Supplementary Information section of this document.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

The docket Web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043. The docket Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to review the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by email: [email protected]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph Hagerman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4549. Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Authority

As amended by the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2105), the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA” or, in context, “the Act”), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), authorizes DOE to issue a direct final rule establishing an energy conservation standard for a product on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) as determined by the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”). That statement must contain recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. A notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must be published simultaneously with the direct final rule and a public comment period of at least 110 days provided. 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, if DOE receives one or more adverse comments or an alternative joint recommendation is received relating to the direct final rule, the Secretary must determine whether the comments or alternative recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable law.

When making a determination whether to withdraw a direct final rule, DOE considers the substance, rather than the quantity, of comments. To this end, DOE weighs the substance of any adverse comment(s) received against the anticipated benefits of the consensus recommendations and the likelihood that further consideration of the comment(s) would change the results of the rulemaking. DOE notes that to the extent an adverse comment had been previously raised and addressed in the rulemaking proceeding, such a submission will not typically provide a basis for withdrawal of a direct final rule. If the Secretary makes such a determination, DOE must withdraw the direct final rule and proceed with the simultaneously published NOPR. DOE must publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the direct final rule was withdrawn.

DOE determined that it did not receive any adverse comments providing a basis for withdrawal as described above for the direct final rule that is the subject of this document—miscellaneous refrigeration products (“MREFs”). As such, DOE did not withdraw this direct final rule and allowed it to become effective. Although not required under EPCA, DOE customarily publishes a summary of the comments received during the 110-day comment period and its responses to those comments.1 This document contains such a summary, as well as DOE's responses to those comments.

1See, e.g., Notice of effective date and compliance dates for direct final rule, 76 FR 67037 (Oct. 31, 2011).

II. Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Direct Final Rule A. Background

During the rulemaking proceeding to consider new energy conservation standards for MREFs, DOE received a statement submitted by an Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) negotiated rulemaking working group for MREFs (the “MREF Working Group” or, in context, the “Working Group”). The MREF Working Group consisted of 15 members, including two members from ASRAC and one DOE representative, with the balance comprising representatives of manufacturers of the covered products at issue, efficiency advocates, and a utility representative. The MREF Working Group submitted to ASRAC two Term Sheets, one of which contained recommendations with respect to new energy conservation standards for MREFs that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), and ASRAC subsequently adopted these consensus recommendations. (See “MREF Term Sheet”, EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043-0011).

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must determine whether a jointly submitted recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard is in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. As stated in the direct final rule, this determination is exactly the type of analysis DOE conducts whenever it considers potential energy conservation standards pursuant to EPCA. DOE applies the same principles to any consensus recommendations it may receive to satisfy its statutory obligation to ensure that any energy conservation standard that it adopts achieves the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified and will result in significant conservation of energy. Upon review, the Secretary determined that the consensus recommendations submitted in the MREF Term Sheet comports with the standard-setting criteria set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Accordingly, the consensus recommendation efficiency levels, included as trial standard level (“TSL”) 2 for coolers and TSL 1 for combination cooler refrigeration products, were adopted as the new standard levels in the direct final rule. 81 FR 75194, 75252-75256 (Oct. 28, 2016).

As the relevant statutory criteria were satisfied, the Secretary adopted the new energy conservation standards for MREFs set forth in the direct final rule. These standards, which are expressed in maximum allowable annual energy use (“AEU”) in kilowatt-hours per year (“kWh/yr”) as a function of the calculated adjusted volume (“AV”) in cubic feet (“ft3”), are set forth in Table II.1 and Table II.2. The standards will apply to all products listed in Table II.1 and Table II.2 that are manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on October 28, 2019. For a detailed discussion of DOE's analysis of the benefits and burdens of the new standards pursuant to the criteria set forth in EPCA, please see the direct final rule. 81 FR 75194 (Oct. 28, 2016).

As required by EPCA, DOE also simultaneously published a NOPR proposing the identical standard levels contained in the direct final rule. 81 FR 74950 (Oct. 28, 2016). DOE considered whether any comment received during the 110-day comment period following the direct final rule was sufficiently “adverse” as to provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule and continuation of this rulemaking under the NOPR. DOE subsequently determined that it did not receive any adverse comments that would provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal.

Table II.1—Energy Conservation Standards for Coolers Product class Maximum allowable AEU
  • (kWh/yr)
  • Built-in Compact 7.88AV † + 155.8 Built-in. Freestanding Compact. Freestanding. † AV = Adjusted volume, in ft3, as calculated according to title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendix A (Appendix A).
    Table II.2—Energy Conservation Standards for Combination Cooler Refrigeration Products Product class description Product class designation * Maximum allowable AEU
  • (kWh/yr)
  • Cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost C-3A 4.57AV † + 130.4 Built-in cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost C-3A-BI 5.19AV + 147.8 Cooler with upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker C-9 5.58AV + 147.7 Built-in cooler with upright freezer with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker C-9-BI 6.38AV + 168.8 Cooler with upright freezer with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker C-9I 5.58AV + 231.7 Built-in cooler with upright freezer with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker C-9I-BI 6.38AV + 252.8 Compact cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost C-13A 5.93AV + 193.7 Built-in compact cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost C-13A-BI †† 6.52AV + 213.1 * These product classes are consistent with the current product classes established for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 10 CFR 430.32. † AV = Adjusted volume, in ft3, as calculated according to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A. †† There is no current product class 13A-BI for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers.
    B. Comments on the MREF Direct Final Rule

    As discussed in section I of this document, not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, if DOE receives either (1) one or more adverse comments or (2) an alternative joint recommendation relating to the direct final rule within the prescribed 110-day comment period, the Secretary must determine whether the comments or alternative recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable law.

    Of the five substantive comments received in response to the direct final rule, four were from interested parties supporting the standard levels specified in the direct final rule as well as the process used to develop those standards. (All comments are available for public viewing at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043.) Among these commenters, three (two manufacturers and an industry trade group) stated that the direct final rule standards would support the industry's goal of achieving a national marketplace for MREFs, prevent a patchwork of State regulations, and allow for future harmonization with Canadian regulations.2

    2 DOE also received one comment from an individual that asked which two rules DOE was withdrawing to implement the direct final rule. See Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043-0127. This comment appears to refer to a recent Executive Order that instructs Federal agencies to withdraw two regulations for each new regulation they issue. See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017) (Executive Order 13771—“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”). The comment seeks clarification as to which rules DOE will withdraw and generally notes the need to rein in “regulatory overkill” by the Federal government. Because this direct final rule had already been issued three months prior to the Executive Order's signing, this rule falls outside of its scope. This document serves solely to confirm the direct final rule's applicable compliance date.

    Another interested party submitted comments questioning the product classes, standards, and analysis included in the direct final rule. The following sections discuss these specific comments and DOE's determination that the comments do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule.

    1. Product Classes

    The interested party who criticized the rule commented that the product class structure and corresponding standards for coolers as specified in the direct final rule are not reasonable. It stated that vapor-compression products (i.e. those products using a compressor/condenser-based system) differ significantly from other non-compressor refrigeration products, such as thermoelectric (i.e. semiconductor-based) or absorption refrigeration products, in terms of testing and energy efficiency. Accordingly, in its view, DOE's rule should have included additional product classes to account for these differences. As an example of this approach, the interested party noted that the European Union's Energy Efficiency Directive No. 643/2009 and testing standard EN 62552-2013 include separate energy efficiency requirements for vapor-compression and non-compressor refrigeration products.

    As discussed in the direct final rule, DOE considered whether separate product classes for non-compressor products were appropriate throughout this rulemaking. In the preliminary analysis, DOE did not identify any unique consumer utility associated with non-compressor refrigeration systems that would justify separate product classes for these products. The MREF Working Group discussed the topic of product classes, and agreed with DOE's determination from the preliminary analysis. Following the Working Group recommendation, DOE sought additional information regarding the consideration of non-compressor products in a notice of data availability (“NODA”). 80 FR 77589 (Dec. 15, 2015). DOE did not receive any information in response to the NODA indicating that separate non-compressor product classes would be justified. Consequently, in the absence of any information supporting the creation of non-compressor-based classes, DOE adopted the approach recommended by the Working Group, which led to the creation of the specific product classes detailed in the direct final rule. See 81 FR 75194, 75196 (Oct. 28, 2016). See also id. at 75209 (explaining the basis for the specific classes adopted by DOE).

    While DOE acknowledges that non-compressor products differ from vapor-compression refrigeration products, DOE was unable to determine any basis on which separate product classes for non-compressor products would be appropriate. Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q), DOE may establish product classes for groups of products that either: (1) Consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products; or (2) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other covered products do not have, and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard from that which applies to other covered products. Non-compressor products consume electric energy input, as do vapor-compression products. DOE is also not aware of any performance-related feature associated with non-compressor products that vapor-compression products do not also offer. Accordingly, DOE maintains its determination in the direct final rule that separate product classes for non-compressor products are not appropriate.

    2. Cooler Standard

    The interested party also argued that the test methods for built-in and freestanding products should be different, with built-in products tested in an enclosure leading to higher energy consumption, and therefore a single maximum allowable AEU is not appropriate for both freestanding and built-in cooler product classes.

    The MREF test procedures in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix A (“Appendix A”) require that both freestanding and built-in products be tested in a freestanding configuration. Accordingly, Appendix A does not specifically lead to higher energy consumption for built-in products compared to freestanding products. Further, the standard levels specified in the direct final rule are consistent with those recommended by the MREF Working Group. The Working Group included multiple manufacturers, including manufacturers of built-in products, who determined that the same maximum AEU was appropriate for both built-in and freestanding coolers. Therefore, DOE has determined that the single maximum allowable AEU is appropriate for both freestanding and built-in coolers. Should DOE receive information in the future demonstrating that the test procedure requires modification to better address built-in products, DOE may revisit the test procedure at that time.

    The interested party also commented that the cooler standard outlined in the direct final rule is too stringent. It compared the direct final rule standard level equation for coolers to the equation previously established by the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) for coolers sold in California, and concluded that the direct final rule standard is 50 percent more stringent than the CEC regulation. It further stated that the direct final rule standards would reduce the number of MREFs in the market.

    DOE notes that the standards specified in the direct final rule and those in the CEC regulations are not directly comparable because they are based on energy consumption measured by different test procedures. Most significantly, the DOE test procedure in Appendix A applies a correction factor of 0.55 to the measured energy consumption of coolers to account for typical household usage. The test procedure used for the CEC regulations applies a usage factor of 0.85. Accounting for this difference alone, the DOE standard level from the direct final rule is equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the maximum allowable energy use in the CEC regulations. DOE observed that many coolers already achieve this efficiency level, including a non-compressor cooler tested by a third party in support of DOE's analysis, and that manufacturer recommendations from the Working Group supported a cooler standard at this level. Therefore, DOE concludes that the cooler standard is not too stringent and not likely to limit consumer purchasing options.

    3. Analysis Periods

    The interested party commented that for coolers at TSL 2, DOE forecasted results over the lifetime of products from 2019 to 2048, while the other TSLs considered the period from 2021 to 2050. Similarly, it noted that for combination cooler refrigeration products, DOE analyzed TSL 1 results over the lifetime of products from 2019 to 2048, and all other TSLs over the period from 2021 to 2050. The commenter noted that due to the different analysis periods used by DOE, the economic analysis and data comparing the different TSLs are unjust and unequal, leading to inaccurate economic analysis conclusions.

    In the direct final rule, DOE analyzed TSLs other than TSL 2 for coolers and TSL 1 for combination cooler refrigeration products based on the 5-year compliance period typically provided when DOE establishes the first energy conservation standards for newly covered products. However, because TSL 2 for coolers and TSL 1 for combination cooler refrigeration products were based on the standard levels and compliance period recommended by the MREF Working Group, DOE analyzed a 3-year compliance period for these TSLs only. DOE's analysis for each TSL considered the 30-year period following the standards compliance date, so TSLs based on the Working Group recommendation considered the analysis period from 2019 to 2048, while the analysis period for the other TSLs was 2021 to 2050. In its analysis, DOE discounted future impacts to the year of the analysis, which allowed for a direct comparison of the projected impacts for each TSL despite the different compliance years and 30-year analysis periods. See chapter 10 of the direct final rule technical support document for a description of the national impact analysis. Therefore, DOE has determined that its conclusions are valid and provide sufficient support for the efficiency levels adopted in the direct final rule.

    4. Product Lifetimes

    The interested party also requested clarification regarding the lifetimes of products assumed in the national impact analysis. It commented that a 30-year product lifetime would be too long, and suggested that DOE use a lifetime of approximately 12 years for products such as wine coolers.

    In the direct final rule analysis, DOE did not assume a 30-year product lifetime; rather, it analyzed products sold over a 30-year period with a distribution of lifetimes. For full-size products (both coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products), DOE estimated a 17.4-year average lifetime, consistent with the average lifetime for full-size refrigerators and freezers. For compact products, DOE estimated a 10.3-year average lifetime based on manufacturer input. See 81 FR at 75219 and chapter 8, section 8.2.2.5 of the direct final rule technical support document. DOE maintains that these lifetime estimates are appropriate because they were supported by manufacturer feedback in the MREF Working Group.

    III. Department of Justice Analysis of Competitive Impacts

    EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from new or amended standards. It also directs the Attorney General of the United States (“Attorney General”) to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) For the direct final rule discussed in this document, DOE published a NOPR containing energy conservation standards identical to those set forth the direct final rule and transmitted a copy of the direct final rule and the accompanying technical support document (“TSD”) to the Attorney General, requesting that the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE has published DOJ's comments at the end of this document.

    DOJ reviewed the new standards in the direct final rule and the direct final rule TSD discussed in this document. As a result of its analysis, DOJ concluded that the new standards issued in the direct final rule are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. DOJ further noted that the standards established in the direct final rule were the same as recommended standards submitted in the consensus recommendations signed by industry participants who believed they could meet the standards (as well as other interested parties).

    IV. Social Cost of Carbon

    DOE notes that the direct final rule discussed in this document preceded Executive Order 16093's requirement to revise future analyses involving carbon monetization. See 82 FR 16093 (March 31, 2017). The direct final rule included an analysis that examined the impacts associated with the social cost of carbon. These values, which were ancillary to the primary analyses that DOE conducted to determine whether the standards adopted in the rule were justified under the statutory criteria prescribed under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), did not change the results of DOE's analyses. Accordingly, while the inclusion of these values helped in providing additional detail regarding the impacts from the rule, those details played no role in determining the outcome of DOE's decision under EPCA.

    V. National Environmental Policy Act

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), DOE has determined that this direct final rule fits within the category of actions included in Categorical Exclusion (“CX”) B5.1 and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). This rule fits within the category of actions because it is a rulemaking establishing energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, and for which none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for it. DOE's CX determination applying to this direct final rule is available at http://energy.gov/nepa/categorical-exclusion-cx-determinations-cx.

    VI. Conclusion

    In summary, based on the discussion above, DOE has determined that the comments received in response to the direct final rule for new energy conservation standards for MREFs do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule. As a result, the energy conservation standards set forth in that direct final rule became effective on February 27, 2017. Compliance with the standards articulated in that direct final rule is required on October 28, 2019.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 22, 2017. Daniel R. Simmons, Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Appendix [The following letter from the Department of Justice will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.] U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Renata B. Hesse Acting Assistant Attorney General RFK Main Justice Building 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202)514-2401/(202)616-2645 (Fax) December 27, 2016 Daniel Cohen Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 Re: Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043

    Dear Assistant General Counsel Cohen:

    I am responding to your letter of October 28, 2016 seeking the views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of proposed energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products (MREFs).

    Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. § 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the Attorney General to make a determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy conservation standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to requests from other departments about the effect of a program on competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR § 0.40(g).

    In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by substantially limiting consumer choice or increasing industry concentration. A lessening of competition could result in higher prices to manufacturers and consumers.

    We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the Direct Final Rule (81 Fed. Reg. 74950 and 75194, Oct. 28, 2016), and the related Technical Support Document. We have also reviewed the transcript of the public meeting held on the proposed standards on January 9, 2015, and public comments filed with the Department of Energy, and conducted interviews with industry representatives.

    Based on the information currently available, we do not believe that the proposed energy conservation standards for MREFs are likely to have a significant adverse impact on competition.

    Very truly yours, Renata B. Hesse.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10867 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008] RIN 1904-AD52 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Confirmation of effective date and compliance date for direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 18, 2017, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) published in the Federal Register a direct final rule to establish new energy conservation standards for dedicated purpose pool pumps. DOE has determined that the comments received in response to that direct final rule do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing it. Therefore, DOE is providing notice confirming the adoption of the energy conservation standards established in that direct final rule and announces the effective date of those standards.

    DATES:

    The direct final rule for dedicated-purpose pool pumps published on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5650) became effective on May 18, 2017. Compliance with the dedicated-purpose pool pumps standards in the direct final rule will be required on July 19, 2021.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

    The docket Web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008. The docket Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

    For further information on how to review the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by email: [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email [email protected].

    Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Authority

    As amended by the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015), the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA” or, in context, “the Act”), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), authorizes DOE to issue a direct final rule establishing an energy conservation standard for a product on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) as determined by the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”). That statement must contain recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6316, as applicable. A notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must be published simultaneously with the direct final rule and a public comment period of at least 110 days provided. 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, if DOE receives one or more adverse comments or an alternative joint recommendation is received relating to the direct final rule, the Secretary must determine whether the comments or alternative recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable law.

    When making a determination whether to withdraw a direct final rule, DOE considers the substance, rather than the quantity, of comments. To this end, DOE weighs the substance of any adverse comment(s) received against the anticipated benefits of the consensus recommendations and the likelihood that further consideration of the comment(s) would change the results of the rulemaking. DOE notes that to the extent an adverse comment had been previously raised and addressed in the rulemaking proceeding, such a submission will not typically provide a basis for withdrawal of a direct final rule. If the Secretary makes such a determination, DOE must withdraw the direct final rule and proceed with the simultaneously published NOPR. DOE must publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the direct final rule was withdrawn.

    DOE determined that it did not receive any adverse comments providing a basis for withdrawal as described above for the direct final rule that is the subject of this document—dedicated purpose pool pumps (“DPPPs”). As such, DOE did not withdraw this direct final rule and allowed it to become effective. Although not required under EPCA, DOE customarily publishes a summary of the comments received during the 110-day comment period and its responses to those comments.1 This document contains such a summary, as well as DOE's responses, for DPPPs.

    1See, e.g., Notice of effective date and compliance dates for direct final rule, 76 FR 67037 (Oct. 31, 2011).

    II. Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps Direct Final Rule A. Background

    Prior to May 18, 2017, no Federal energy conservation standards existed for DPPPs. DOE excluded this category of pumps from its recent consensus-based energy conservation standard final rule for general pumps. 81 FR 4368 (January 26, 2016).

    On July 29, 2016, DOE received a statement submitted by ASRAC that a consensus had been reached by a negotiated rulemaking working group for DPPPs (the “the DPPP Working Group” or, in context, the “Working Group”). The DPPP Working Group consisted of 13 members, including one member from ASRAC and one DOE representative, with the balance comprising representatives of manufacturers of the DPPPs, efficiency advocates, and a State representative. The DPPP Working Group submitted to ASRAC a Term Sheet, that, in the view of the Working Group, would satisfy the EPCA requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), and ASRAC voted unanimously to adopt these consensus recommendations. (DPPP Term Sheet, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 82)

    After careful consideration of the DPPP Term Sheet related to amended energy conservation standards for DPPPs, the Secretary has determined that the recommendations contained therein are compliant with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), and were submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of relevant points of view on this matter, as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i) for the issuance of a direct final rule.

    DOE found that the standard levels recommended in the DPPP Term Sheet would result in significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and economically justified. Thus, energy conservation standards, definitions, and prescriptive requirements established in the DPPP direct final rule and articulated below in this notice directly reflect the June 2016 DPPP Working Group recommendations.

    Tables II-1 and I-2 document the new standards for DPPPs established as a result of the direct final rule and the June 2016 DPPP Working Group recommendations. Standards for equipment classes in Table II-1 are performance-based, expressed in terms of weighted energy factor (“WEF”); standards in Table II-2 are prescriptive. These standards apply to all equipment listed in Tables II-1 and II-2 and manufactured in or imported into the United States starting on July 19, 2021.

    Table II.1—Performance-Based Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps Equipment class Dedicated-purpose pool pump variety Hydraulic horsepower
  • applicability *
  • Motor phase Minimum allowable WEF ** score
    Standard-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pumps 0.711 hp ≤ hhp < 2.5 hp Single WEF =−2.30 * ln (hhp) + 6.59. Small-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pumps hhp < 0.711 hp Single WEF = 5.55 for hhp ≤ 0.13 hp,−1.30 * ln (hhp) + 2.90 for hhp > 0.13 hp. Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pumps hhp < 2.5 hp Any WEF = 4.60 for hhp ≤ 0.13 hp,−0.85 * ln (hhp) + 2.87 for hhp > 0.13 hp. Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps Any Any WEF = 0.42. * All instances of hhp refer to rated hydraulic horsepower determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.464 and applicable sampling plans. *** WEF is measured by kgal/kWh.
    Table II.2—Prescriptive Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps Equipment class Dedicated-purpose pool pump variety Hydraulic horsepower
  • applicability
  • Motor phase Prescriptive standard
    Integral Sand Filter Pool Pump Any Any Must be distributed in commerce with a pool pump timer that is either integral to the pump or a separate component that is shipped with the pump. Integral Cartridge Filter Pool Pump Any Any Must be distributed in commerce with a pool pump timer that is either integral to the pump or a separate component that is shipped with the pump. All Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps Distributed in Commerce with Freeze Protection Controls Any Any The pump must be shipped with freeze protection disabled or with the following default, user-adjustable settings:
  • • The default dry-bulb air temperature setting is no greater than 40 °F;
  • • The default run time setting shall be no greater than 1 hour (before the temperature is rechecked); and
  • • The default motor speed shall not be more than 1/2 of the maximum available speed.
  • B. Comments on the DPPP Direct Final Rule

    Of the 11 substantive comments received in response to the direct final rule, 9 were from parties that expressed support for the direct final rule and its outcome. (All comments are available for public viewing at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048.) Among these commenters, five manufacturers and one trade group all commented positively on finalizing the rule based on manufacturing certainty. In addition, they highlighted the significant economic benefits to consumers and ratepayers that the direct final rule would provide.

    Other parties submitted comments that either expressed tentative support or no support for the DPPP direct final rule. The following sections discuss these specific comments and DOE's determination that the comments do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule.

    1. Replacement Motors

    Four parties commented that they hesitated to support or stated they did not support the direct final rule, despite their participation in the DPPP Working Group and unanimous consensus to the DPPP Term Sheet, because the direct final rule did not address replacement motors. Two parties further encouraged DOE to initiate a working group to address specifically replacement pool motors.

    In response, DOE notes that its direct final rule and Working Group only supported the development of energy conservation standards for DPPPs. DPPP replacement motors are not the subject of in this direct final rule. DOE appreciates that stakeholders have expressed support for adoption of the direct final rule as currently drafted, and notes that affected stakeholders have four-and-a-half years to take steps toward compliance with the DPPP standards, including forming a replacement pool pump motors working group. Thus, DOE plans to hold a public meeting in the near future with the interested parties to gather data and information that could lead to the consideration of energy conservation standards for replacement pool pump motors.

    2. Cost/Benefit Analysis

    DOE received one substantive comment that alleged that the costs (regulatory and consumer) published in the DPPP direct final rule were too high. In particular, the commenter noted that the installation cost of a typical self-priming pool pump would increase by 77 percent, and that other pump categories will see price increases of anywhere between $9 and $66.

    In response, DOE notes that all of these issues were discussed in detail during the Working Group negotiations. DOE's analysis accounted for the lower energy costs that the consumers would receive, which would add up to a lifetime cost saving of over $2,000 and an eight-month payback period. DOE also received a comment from a manufacturer that stated that 50 percent of the self-priming pool pumps on the market are already compliant, which suggests that the direct final rule's standards are technologically feasible and economically justified.

    DOE notes that EPCA does not require it to choose the standard level with the least consumer cost, or the least cost to manufacturers, but only to assess those, among other, costs and benefits (using the 7 factors articulated at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) and determine whether the burdens outweigh the benefits. In this case, the recommended TSL met that standard, and DOE's analysis and conclusions would not change based on the comments received. Thus, DOE does not consider these comments to provide a basis to justify a withdrawal of this direct final rule under EPCA.

    3. Independent Control as Interested Parties

    DOE received a comment from an independent control manufacturer who commented that the views of independent control manufacturers were not represented in the Working Group, and thus the Working Group Term Sheet did not represent a consensus agreement. The Working Group meetings were conducted transparently, and the commenter's concerns were raised by multiple Working Group members, discussed at length, and resolved.

    III. Department of Justice Analysis of Competitive Impacts

    EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from new or amended standards. It also directs the Attorney General of the United States (“Attorney General”) to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) For the direct final rule discussed in this document, DOE published a NOPR containing energy conservation standards identical to those set forth the direct final rule and transmitted a copy of the direct final rule and the accompanying technical support document (“TSD”) to the Attorney General, requesting that the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE has published DOJ's comments at the end of this document.

    DOJ reviewed the new standards in the direct final rule and the direct final rule TSD discussed in this document. As a result of its analysis, DOJ concluded that the new standards issued in the direct final rule are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. DOJ further noted that the standards established in the direct final rule were the same as recommended standards submitted in the consensus recommendations signed by industry participants who believed they could meet the standards (as well as other interested parties).

    IV. Social Cost of Carbon

    DOE notes that the direct final rule discussed in this document preceded Executive Order 13783's requirement to revise future analyses involving carbon monetization. See 82 FR 16093 (March 31, 2017). The direct final rule included an analysis that examined the impacts associated with the social cost of carbon. These values, which were ancillary to the primary analyses that DOE conducted to determine whether the standards adopted in the rule were justified under the statutory criteria prescribed under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), did not change the results of DOE's analyses. Accordingly, while the inclusion of these values helped in providing additional detail regarding the impacts from the rule, those details played no role in determining the outcome of DOE's decision under EPCA.

    V. National Environmental Policy Act

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), DOE has determined that this direct final rule fits within the category of actions included in Categorical Exclusion (“CX”) B5.1 and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). This rule fits within the category of actions because they are rulemakings establishing energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, and for which none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for it. DOE's CX determination applying to this direct final rule is available at http://energy.gov/nepa/categorical-exclusion-cx-determinations-cx.

    VI. Conclusion

    In summary, based on the discussion above, DOE has determined that the comments received in response to the direct final rule establishing new energy conservation standards for DPPPs do not provide a reasonable basis for its withdrawal. As a result, the energy conservation standards set forth in that direct final rule became effective on May 18, 2017. Compliance with the standards articulated in that direct final rule is required on July 19, 2021.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 22, 2017. Daniel R. Simmons, Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Appendix [The following letter will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations] U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division ANDREW C. FINCH Acting Assistant Attorney General Main Justice Building 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. Washington, DC 20530-0001 (202) 514-2401/(202) 616-2645 (Fax) April 21, 2017 Daniel Cohen Assistant General Counsel U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585

    Dear Assistant General Counsel Cohen:

    I am responding to your February 21, 2017, letter seeking the views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of proposed energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps (EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008). Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 43 U.S.C. 6316(a), which requires the Attorney General to make a determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy conservation standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to requests from other departments about the effect of a program on competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g).

    In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by substantially limiting consumer choice or increasing industry concentration. A lessening of competition could result in higher prices to manufacturers and consumers.

    We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the Direct Final Rule (82 FR 5650, Jan. 18, 2017). We have also reviewed supplementary infounation submitted to the Attorney General by the Department of Energy and spoken with industry representatives. Based on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition.

    Sincerely, Andrew C. Finch
    [FR Doc. 2017-10868 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0373; Special Conditions No. 25-679-SC] Special Conditions: Embraer S. A., Model EMB-550 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final special conditions; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Embraer S. A. (Embraer) Model EMB-550 airplane. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    DATES:

    This action is effective on Embraer on May 26, 2017. We must receive your comments by July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0373 using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477- 19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.

    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

    The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

    Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

    On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for after this same date.

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

    Comments Invited

    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

    Background

    Embraer holds type certificate no. TC00062IB, which provides the certification basis for the EMB-550 airplane. The EMB-550 is a twin engine, transport category airplane with a passenger seating capacity of 12 and a maximum takeoff weight of 38,360 pounds.

    The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the EMB-550 airplane. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Embraer must show that the EMB-550 airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. TC00062IB or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the EMB-550 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

    Special conditions are initially applicable to the airplane model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the EMB-550 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

    Novel or Unusual Design Feature

    The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

    For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.

    Discussion

    The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

    Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

    On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

    Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

    • Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

    • Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

    • Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

    Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

    • Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

    • Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

    • Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

    Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

    Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

    Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

    Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

    Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

    While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

    These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.

    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    Applicability

    These special conditions are applicable to the EMB-550 airplane. Should Embraer apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

    These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.

    These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

    Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

    The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 airplane. Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

    In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

    1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

    2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

    3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

    4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

    5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

    6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

    7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

    8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

    Note:

    A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 17, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10840 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0376; Special Conditions No. 25-680-SC] Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc., Model 680 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final special conditions; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Model 680 airplane. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    DATES:

    This action is effective on Textron on May 26, 2017. We must receive your comments by July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0376 using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.

    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

    The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

    Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

    On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for after this same date.

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

    Comments Invited

    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

    Background

    Textron holds type certificate no. T00012WI, which provides the certification basis for the Model 680 airplane. The Model 680 is a twin engine, transport category airplane with a passenger seating capacity of 12 and a maximum takeoff weight of 30,300 to 30,775 pounds, depending on the specific design.

    The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Model 680 airplane. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Textron must show that the Model 680 airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. T00012WI or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model 680 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

    Special conditions are initially applicable to the airplane model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 680 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

    Novel or Unusual Design Feature

    The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

    For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.

    Discussion

    The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

    Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

    On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

    Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

    • Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

    • Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

    • Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

    Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

    • Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

    • Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

    • Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

    Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

    Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

    Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

    Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

    Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

    While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

    These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.

    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    Applicability

    These special conditions are applicable to the Model 680 airplane. Should Textron apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

    These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.

    These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

    Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

    The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Textron Model 680 airplane.

    Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

    In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

    1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

    2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

    3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

    4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

    5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

    6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

    7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

    8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

    Note:

    A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 17, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10841 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0369; Special Conditions No. 25-678-SC] Special Conditions: Airbus, Model A330-300 Series Airplanes; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final special conditions; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Airbus Model A330-300 series airplanes. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    DATES:

    This action is effective on Airbus on May 26, 2017. We must receive your comments by July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0369 using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.

    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

    The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

    Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

    On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for after this same date.

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

    Comments Invited

    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

    Background

    Airbus holds type certificate no. A46NM, which provides the certification basis for the A330-300 series airplanes. The A330-300 series airplanes are twin engine, transport category airplanes with a passenger seating capacity of 375 to 440 and a maximum takeoff weight of 405,650 to 533,518 pounds, depending on the specific design.

    The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the A330-300 series airplanes. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Airbus must show that the A330-300 series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. A46NM or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the A330-300 series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

    Special conditions are initially applicable to the airplane model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the A330-300 series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

    Novel or Unusual Design Feature

    The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

    For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.

    Discussion

    The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

    Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

    On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

    Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

    • Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

    • Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

    • Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

    Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

    • Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

    • Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

    • Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

    Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

    Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

    Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

    Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

    Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

    While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

    These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.

    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    Applicability

    These special conditions are applicable to the A330-300 series airplanes. Should Airbus apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

    These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.

    These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

    Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

    The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Airbus Model A330-300 series airplanes.

    Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

    In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

    1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

    2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

    3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

    4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

    5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

    6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

    7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

    8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

    Note:

    A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 17, 2017. Michael Kaszycki Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10839 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0377; Special Conditions No. 25-681-SC] Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc., Model 700 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final special conditions; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Model 700 airplane. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    DATES:

    This action is effective on Textron on May 26, 2017. We must receive your comments by July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0377 using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.

    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

    The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

    Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

    On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for after this same date.

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

    Comments Invited

    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

    Background

    On November 20, 2014, Textron applied for a type certificate for a new Model 700 airplane. The Model 700 is a twin engine, transport category airplane with a passenger seating capacity of 12 and a projected maximum takeoff weight of 38,514 pounds.

    The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Model 700 airplane. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Textron must show that the Model 700 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-139, 25-141 and 25-143.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Textron 700 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

    Special conditions are initially applicable to the airplane model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Textron Model 700 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17.

    Novel or Unusual Design Feature

    The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

    For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.

    Discussion

    The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

    Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

    On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

    Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

    • Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

    • Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

    • Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

    Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

    • Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

    • Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

    • Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

    Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

    Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

    Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

    Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

    Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

    While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

    These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123. Sections 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 remain in effect for other battery installations.

    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    Applicability

    These special conditions are applicable to the Textron Model 700 airplane. Should Textron apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

    These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.

    These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

    Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

    The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Textron Model 700 airplane. Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

    In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

    1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

    2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

    3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

    4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

    5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

    6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

    7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

    8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

    Note:

    A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 17, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10842 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0387; Special Conditions No. 25-682-SC] Special Conditions: The Boeing Company, Model 787-9 Series Airplanes; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final special conditions; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on The Boeing Company (Boeing) Model 787-9 series airplanes. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    DATES:

    This action is effective on The Boeing Company May 26, 2017. We must receive your comments by July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0387 using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.

    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

    The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

    Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

    On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for after this same date.

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

    Comments Invited

    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

    Background

    Boeing holds type certificate no. T00021SE, which provides the certification basis for the 787-9 series airplanes. The 787-9 is a twin engine, transport category airplane with a passenger seating capacity of 420 and a maximum takeoff weight of 557,000 pounds.

    The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on 787-9 series airplanes. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Boeing must show that the 787-9 series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. T00021SE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the 787-9 series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

    Special conditions are initially applicable to the airplane model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the 787-9 series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

    Novel or Unusual Design Feature

    The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

    For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.

    Discussion

    The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

    Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

    On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

    Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

    • Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

    • Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

    • Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

    Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

    • Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

    • Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

    • Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

    Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

    Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

    Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

    Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

    Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

    While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

    These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.

    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    Applicability

    These special conditions are applicable to the 787-9 series airplanes. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

    These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.

    These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

    Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

    The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Boeing Model 787-9 series airplanes.

    Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

    In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

    1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

    2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

    3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

    4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

    5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

    6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

    7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

    8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

    Note:

    A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 17, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10843 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0186; Directorate Identifier 2017-NE-07-AD; Amendment 39-18899; AD 2017-10-25] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) model Spey 506-14A, Spey 555-15, Spey 555-15H, Spey 555-15N, and Spey 555-15P turbofan engines. This AD requires reducing the maximum approved life limits for certain high-pressure compressor (HPC) stage 12 rotor disks. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective June 12, 2017.

    We must receive comments on this AD by July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11-15827 Dahlewitz, Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: +49 0 33-7086-1944; fax: +49 0 33-7086-3276. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0186; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0186; Directorate Identifier 2017-NE-07-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this AD.

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2017-0014, dated January 30, 2017 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Based on revised stress analysis and life calculation, Rolls-Royce Deutschland (RRD) determined new provisional life limits for high pressure compressor (HPC) stage 12 rotor disks, Part Number (P/N) EU25917, P/N EU56963, P/N JR10242 and P/N JR18449, reducing the maximum approved life limits currently defined in the RRD Spey 555-15 Engine Maintenance Manual (EMM), Chapter 5-10-1, currently at the revision dated July 2015 and the Engine Overhaul Manual (EOM), Chapter 5-10, revision dated November 2014. The Spey 506-14A EMM, Chapter 5-10-1 revision dated October 1993 as well as the Spey 506-14A EOM, Chapter 5-10 revision dated November 1992 already contain the applicable life limit. Failure to replace an affected HPC stage 12 rotor disk before exceeding these limits, could lead to an uncontained engine failure, possibly resulting in damage to, and/or reduced control of, the aeroplane. To address this potential unsafe condition, RRD issued Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Sp72-A1071 to provide instructions to determine (re-calculate) the consumed and remaining service life for each part. For the reasons described above, this AD requires re-calculation of the service life (consumed and remaining) of the affected HPC stage 12 rotor disks and, depending on the results, implementation of the life limits. It is expected that the affected reduced life limits are introduced into a next revision of the RRD Spey 555-15 Engine EMM and EOM.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0186.

    Related Service Information

    RRD has issued Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Sp72-A1071, Revision 1, dated January 27, 2017. The Alert NMSB provides instructions to re-calculate the consumed and remaining service life for HPC stage 12 rotor disks, part number (P/N) EU25917, P/N EU56963, P/N JR10242, and P/N JR18449. This service information is available by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Germany, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires reducing the maximum approved life limits and re-calculating the consumed and remaining service life for HPC stage 12 rotor disks P/N EU25917, P/N EU56963, P/N JR10242, and P/N JR18449.

    FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    No domestic operators use this product. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 0 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Pro-rated lost life 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $3,900 $3,985 $0
    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-10-25 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG: Amendment 39-18899; Docket No. FAA-2017-0186; Directorate Identifier 2017-NE-07-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 12, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) Spey 506-14A, Spey 555-15, Spey 555-15H, Spey 555-15N, and Spey 555-15P turbofan engines with high-pressure compressor (HPC) stage 12 rotor disks, part number (P/N) EU25917, P/N EU56963, P/N JR10242, or P/N JR18449, installed.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by RRD re-calculating the life limits for HPC stage 12 rotor disks, P/N EU25917, P/N EU56963, P/N JR10242, and P/N JR18449. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC stage 12 rotor disk, uncontained HPC stage 12 rotor disk release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, determine if:

    (i) The affected part was ever operated in a Spey 555-15, Spey 555-15H, Spey 555-15N, or Spey 555-15P engine model, or

    (ii) the affected part was operated soley in a Spey 506-14A engine.

    (2) If the affected part was operated solely in a Spey 506-14A engine with no history of operating in a Spey 555-15, Spey 555-15H, Spey 555-15N, or Spey 555-15P engine, no further action is required.

    (3) If the affected part was operated in in both Spey 506-14A and Spey 555-15, Spey 555-15H, Spey 555-15N, or Spey 555-15P engine models, or solely in Spey 555-15, Spey 555-15H, Spey 555-15N, or Spey 555-15P engines, re-calculate the consumed cyclic life (and remaining service life) using the Maximum Approved Life for each engine model and take-off monitoring procedure as defined in Figures 1 and 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (4) After the effective date of this AD, the Maximum Approved Lives for the affected parts are as defined in Figure 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD. Calculate the consumed cyclic life (and remaining service life) using the Spey 555-15, Spey 555-15H, Spey 555-15N, or Spey 555-15P Maximum Approved Lives in Figure 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (5) For Spey 506-14A engines with an affected part installed, that do not have an engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD before the re-calculated consumed cyclic life of the affected part exceeds 14,700 flight cycles (FC), remove the affected part from service before the re-calculated consumed cyclic life exceeds 14,700 FC, or 50 FC or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (6) For Spey 555-15, Spey 555-15H, Spey 555-15N, or Spey 555-15P engines with an affected part installed, that do not have an engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD before the re-calculated consumed cyclic life of the affected part exceeds the Maximum Approved Lives in Figure 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD, remove the affected part from service before the re-calculated consumed cyclic life exceeds the later of the following:

    (i) Maximum Approved Lives in Figure 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD, or

    (ii) 200 FC or 90 days after the effective date of this AD, or before exceeding the In-Service Replacement Limits defined in Figure 3 to paragraph (g) of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    Figure 1 to Paragraph (g)—Spey 506-14A High-Pressure Compressor (HPC) Stage 12 Rotor Disk Maximum Approved Life Flight cycles HPC stage 12 rotor disk, P/N EU25917, EU56963, and JR10242 14,700 Figure 2 to Paragraph (g)—Spey 555-15, Spey 555-15H, Spey 555-15N, or Spey 555-15P HPC Stage 12 Rotor Disk, P/N EU25917, EU56963, JR10242, and JR18449, Maximum Approved Life Take-off monitoring procedure Maximum
  • approved lives
  • (flight cycles)
  • (A) With no high-pressure (HP) revolutions per minute (RPM) monitoring 11,500 HP RPM monitoring; stated RPM not exceeded on more than 15% of occasions: (B) 100% N2 13,600 (C) 99% N2 17,100 (D) 98% N2 19,300 (E) 97% N2 20,500 (F) No HP RPM monitoring required Datum (Average N2 at 99.5%) 16,800
    Figure 3 to Paragraph (g)—Spey 555-15, Spey 555-15H, Spey 555-15N, or Spey 555-15P HPC Stage 12 Rotor Disk, P/N EU25917, EU56963, JR10242, and JR18449, In-Service Replacement Limits Take-off monitoring procedure In-service
  • replacement limits
  • (flight cycles)
  • (A) With no HP RPM monitoring 13,800 HP RPM monitoring; stated RPM not exceeded on more than 15% of occasions: (B) 100% N2 15,600 (C) 99% N2 17,600 (D) 98% N2 19,700 (E) 97% N2 22,100 (F) No HP RPM monitoring required Datum (Average N2 at 99.5%) 17,300
    (h) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, installation of a serviceable spare engine or release to service of an engine after any shop visit is allowed, provided the affected part has not exceeded the Maximum Approved Lives in Figures 1 or 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, a shop visit is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance or overhaul. The separation of engine flanges solely for the purpose of transporting the engine without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), AD 2017-0014, dated January 30, 2017, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2017-0186.

    (3) RRD Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin Sp72-A1071, Revision 1, dated January 27, 2017, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD, can be obtained from RRD, using the contact information in paragraph (k)(4) of this AD.

    (4) For RRD service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11-15827 Dahlewitz, Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: +49 0 33-7086-1944; fax: +49 0 33-7086-3276.

    (5) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 9, 2017. Robert J. Ganley, Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10437 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0451; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-015-AD; Amendment 39-18885; AD 2017-10-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Stemme AG Gliders AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Stemme AG Model S10-VT gliders (type certificate previously held by Stemme GmbH & Co. KG). This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as certain propeller front transmission gear wheels having insufficient material strength because of improper heat treatment during manufacturing. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 15, 2017.

    We must receive comments on this AD by July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0451; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No. 2017-0072-E, dated April 26, 2017 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    It has been determined that, following improper heat treatment during manufacture, the material strength of an identified batch of propeller front transmission gear wheels is insufficient.

    This condition, if not corrected, can lead to failure of a gear wheel, with possible loss of the power transmission between the engine and the propeller and, eventually, reduced control of the sailplane.

    Prompted by these determinations, Stemme issued Service Bulletin (SB) P062-980010, providing instructions not to operate sailplanes equipped with affected parts.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires replacement of affected gearboxes.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0451.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because improper heat treatment of the propeller front transmission gear wheels could cause the gear wheel to fail. This failure could cause loss of power between the engine and the propeller, which could result in reduced control. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0451; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-015-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    There are approximately 50 Stemme AG Model S10-VT gliders of U.S. registry but only 14 serial numbers of the part number (P/N) 11AG front gearbox. Therefore, the most gliders of U.S. registry affected would be 14. According to Stemme AG, there are only 2 of the affected gearboxes installed on gliders of U.S. registery.

    At the issue date of this AD, no design solution is available to restore the airworthiness of the respective type design to a level corresponding to its approved type design specifications. Therefore, the FAA cannot determine the cost of returning the affected gliders to service.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: 2017-10-11 Stemme AG: Amendment 39-18885; Docket No. FAA-2017-0451; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-015-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 15, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Stemme AG Model S10-VT gliders (type certificate previously held by Stemme GmbH & Co. KG), all serial numbers, that are:

    (1) Equipped with a front gearbox, part number (P/N) 11AG, with a serial number listed in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD; and

    (2) are certificated in any category.

    Table 1 to Paragraph (c) of This AD—Affected P/N 11AG (Front Gearbox) S/Ns 80058/0814
  • 80059/0915
  • 80060/0915
  • 80061/1115
  • 80062/1215
  • 80063/0116
  • 80064/0416
  • 80065/0616
  • 80066/0716
  • 80067/0916
  • 80068/1016
  • 80069/0117
  • 80070/0217
  • 80071/0217
  • Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD:

    Page 2 of Stemme AG Service Bulletin No. P062-980010, dated April 21, 2017, provides a pictorial of where the serial number of the affected gearboxes are located.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 61: Propellers/Propulsors.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as certain propeller front transmission gear wheels having insufficient material strength because of improper heat treatment during manufacturing. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the propeller front transmission gear wheels. This failure could cause loss of power between the engine and the propeller, which could result in reduced control.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions.

    (1) Before further flight after June 15, 2017 (the effective date of this AD), replace the front gearbox following a method approved specifically for this AD by the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate. Contact the FAA using the information in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to obtain FAA-approved repair instructions approved specifically for compliance with this AD and incorporate those instructions.

    Note 2 to paragraph (f)(1) of this AD:

    At the issue date of this AD, no design solution is available to restore the airworthiness of the respective type design to a level corresponding to its approved type design specifications.

    (2) As of June 15, 2017 (the effective date of this AD), do not install a front gear box listed in paragraph (c) of this AD.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any glider to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

    (h) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0072-E, dated April 26, 2017, and Stemme AG Service Bulletin No. P062-980010, dated April 21, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0451.

    (2) For information concerning this action, contact STEMME AG service information identified in this AD, contact STEMME AG, Flugplatzstrasse F2, Nr. 6-7, D-15344 Strausberg, Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 3341-3612-0, fax: +49 (0) 3341-3612-30; Internet: www.stemme.com.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 9, 2017. Melvin Johnson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10402 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9511; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-20] Amendment of Class D Airspace; Kingsville, TX AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends the legal description of Class D airspace extending up to 2,500 feet above the surface at Kingsville Naval Air Station (NAS), Kingsville, TX. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Kingsville radio beacon (RBN), and cancellation of the RBN approach, and enhances the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of Kingsville Naval Air Station, Kingsville, TX, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, September 14, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ron Laster, Federal Aviation Administration, Contract Support, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5879.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Kingsville NAS, Kingsville, TX.

    History

    On March 27, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class D airspace at Kingsville NAS, Kingsville, TX (82 FR 15172). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    The FAA is finalizing this amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class D airspace extending up to and including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Kingsville NAS by removing the area within two miles each side of the 200 degree bearing from the Kingsville RBN extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 4.9 miles south of the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the RBN and cancellation of the RBN approach, and enhances the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6000 Class D Airspace Areas. ASW TX D Kingsville, TX [Amended] Kingsville Naval Air Station (NAS), TX (Lat. 27°30′16″ N., long. 97°48′30″ W.) Kingsville TACAN (Lat. 27°29′57″ N., long. 97°48′20″ W.)

    That airspace extends upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Kingsville NAS, and within 1.3 miles each side of the 191° radial of the Kingsville TACAN extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 4.9 miles south of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on May 11, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10429 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 744 [Docket No. 170303229-7229-01] RIN 0694-AH36 Addition of Certain Persons and Revisions to Entries on the Entity List AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding sixteen persons to the Entity List. The sixteen persons who are added to the Entity List have been determined by the U.S. Government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. These sixteen persons will be listed on the Entity List under the destinations of Pakistan, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. This final rule is also modifying two existing entries in the Entity List under the destinations of China and Hong Kong.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective May 26, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Entity List (15 CFR, subchapter C, part 744, Supplement No. 4) identifies entities and other persons reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR, subchapter C, parts 730-774) imposes additional license requirements on, and limits the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to those listed. The license review policy for each listed entity or other person is identified in the License Review Policy column on the Entity List, and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the relevant Federal Register notice adding entities or other persons to the Entity List. BIS places entities and other persons on the Entity List pursuant to part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

    The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote, and makes all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

    ERC Entity List Decisions Additions to the Entity List

    This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add sixteen persons to the Entity List. These sixteen persons are being added on the basis of § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The sixteen entries added to the Entity List consist of eleven entries located in Pakistan, three entries in Turkey and two entries in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

    The ERC reviewed § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) in making the determination to add these sixteen persons to the Entity List. Under that paragraph, persons for whom there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that they have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States and those acting on behalf of such persons may be added to the Entity List. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of § 744.11 provide an illustrative list of activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.

    Of the eleven entries that are being added to the Entity List under the destination of Pakistan, the ERC determined that nine of the entities—MSN International, Creative Dynamics Engineering, FACO Trading, Interscan, Micado, Premier International, Sumico Technologies, Oriental Engineers and Imam Group—are government, parastatal and private entities involved in activities that are contrary to the national security and/or foreign policy interests of the United States. The ERC determined that for one entity, KMA International Import and Export Co., information is available indicating that the company is acting and procuring items on behalf of Abdul Qader Khan Research Laboratories (AQKRL). AQKRL was added to the Entity list on November 19, 1998 (63 FR 64322).

    One of the Pakistani entities, Makkays Hi-Tech Systems, is being added to the Entity List, along with two persons under the destination of the UAE, Euromoto Middle East FZE and its owner, Talaat Mehmood. The ERC determined that Makkays Hi-Tech Systems directed Euromoto Middle East FZE and Talaat Mehmood to supply U.S.-origin items, without obtaining the necessary licenses, to Pakistan's Advanced Engineering Research Organization (AERO). AERO was added to the Entity List on September 18, 2014 (79 FR 5999), based on its involvement in the procurement of sensitive U.S. technology in support of Pakistan's development of its missile and strategic unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) programs.

    This final rule also adds three persons located in the destination of Turkey—ERA Metalurji San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti., Mehmet Cingi and Cenk Ozturk—to the Entity List. These persons are being added on the basis of their involvement in the reexportation of U.S.-origin metal alloy powders with aerospace, missile and nuclear applications to Iran without the required license, in violation of both the EAR and the Department of the Treasury's Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR).

    Pursuant to § 744.11(b) of the EAR, the ERC determined that the conduct of these sixteen persons raises sufficient concern that prior review of exports, reexports or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR involving these persons, and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on shipments to the persons, will enhance BIS's ability to prevent violations of the EAR.

    For the sixteen persons added to the Entity List, BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR, and a license review policy of presumption of denial. The license requirements apply to any transaction in which items are to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to any of the persons or in which such persons act as purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List in this rule. The acronym “a.k.a.” (also known as) is used in entries on the Entity List to identify aliases and help exporters, reexporters and transferors to better identify persons on the Entity List.

    This final rule adds the following sixteen persons to the Entity List:

    Pakistan (1) Creative Dynamics Engineering, a.k.a., the following one alias: —Creative Dynamics. 66/1-M Block 6, PECHS, Karachi, Sindh 75400, Pakistan; (2) FACO Trading, 204, Bank & Business Centre Near Duty Free Shop off Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan; (3) Imam Group, a.k.a., the following one alias: —Pana Communication Inc. Plot No. 227, St. No. 7, Sector I-9/2, Industrial Area, Near Dry Port, Islamabad, Pakistan; and 70-East A.A. Plaza, Mezz. Floor Blue Area, Islamabad 44000, Capital, Pakistan; (4) Interscan, Sattar Villa B, 32/1-C-1 Block-6, P.E.C.H.S., Karachi 75400i, Singh, Pakistan; (5) KMA International Import and Export Co., Sector I-8/4, House No. 460, Street No. 105, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan; (6) Makkays Hi-Tech Systems, a.k.a., the following one alias: —Zaib Electronics. Block 14 Civic Centre, G-6 Markaz, Islamabad, Pakistan; and Kulsum Plaza, 42 Jinnah Avenue, Islamabad, Pakistan; and Basement Khyber Plaza, Barma Town, near Barma Bridge, Lehtrar Road; and House No. 675, Street No. 19, G-9/3, Islamabad, Pakistan; (7) Micado, 40-C, Block-6, P.E.C.H.S., Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi, Singh, Pakistan; (8) MSN International, Office No. 32/37, 1st Floor, Behind NBP, Aslam Market, Wah Cantt, Pakistan; (9) Oriental Engineers, 11-B Main Gulberg, Lahore, Pakistan; (10) Premier International, a.k.a., the following one alias: —Align Impex. Suite E-2, E-Market, DHA EME Sector, Multan Road, Lahore-54500, Pakistan; and Suite 22 1st Floor Lodhi Arcade, 42 Ferozpur Road, Lahore, Pakistan; and (11) Sumico Technologies, 185-J-1, Muhammad Ali Johar Town, Lahore, Pakistan; and House #307-B Upper Floor Main Margalla Road, F-11/3 Islamabad, Pakistan; and House #E-26 Block A Railway Society, Gulshan-E-Jamal, Karachi, Pakistan. Turkey (1) Cenk Ozturk, Aktepe Sanayi Sitesi, Kinalikar Sokak, Orta Mahalle No. 19, Orhanli—Tuzla, Istanbul, Turkey; (2) ERA Metalurji San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti., Aktepe Sanayi Sitesi, Kinalikar Sokak, Orta Mahalle No. 19, Orhanli—Tuzla, Istanbul, Turkey; and (3) Mehmet Cingi, Aktepe Sanayi Sitesi, Kinalikar Sokak, Orta Mahalle No. 19, Orhanli—Tuzla, Istanbul, Turkey. United Arab Emirates (1) Euromoto Middle East FZE, Q-4 136 Warehouse, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE; and Q1-08-051/B, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE; and P.O. Box 121826, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE; and (2) Talaat Mehmood, Q-4 136 Warehouse, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE; and Q1-08-051/B, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE; and P.O. Box 121826, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE. Modifications to Entries on the Entity List

    This final rule implements a decision of the ERC to modify two existing entries on the Entity List under the destinations of China and Hong Kong. The modifications include the addition of the name Xianfa Lin to two existing entries and the identification of the previously listed name (Alpha Lam) in these entries as an alias. This final rule does not make any other changes to these two entries, except for revising the Federal Register citation column to reflect this modification. The license requirement for these two existing entries remains for all items subject to the EAR and the license review policy remains a presumption of denial.

    This final rule makes the following revisions to two entries on the Entity List:

    China (1) Xianfa Lin, a.k.a., the following one alias: —Alpha Lam. 15H Office Building, Buji Central Plaza, Jihua Road, Buji Longgang, Shenzhen, China (See alternate address under Hong Kong). Hong Kong (1) Xianfa Lin, a.k.a., the following one alias: —Alpha Lam. Room 1041 Pacific Trade Center No. 2 Kai Hing Road, Kowloon Bay, Hong Kong (See alternate address under China). Savings Clause

    Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export or reexport, on May 26, 2017, pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR).

    Export Administration Act of 1979

    Although the Export Administration Act of 1979 expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016), has continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (15 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

    Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications, and carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission.

    Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to [email protected]omb.eop.gov, or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

    4. For the sixteen persons added to the Entity List in this final rule, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation and a 30-day delay in effective date are inapplicable, because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). BIS implementation of this rule is necessary to protect U.S. national security or foreign policy interests by preventing items from being exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, the entities being added to the Entity List by this action would continue to be able to receive items without a license and to conduct activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. In addition, publishing a proposed rule would give these parties notice of the U.S. Government's intention to place them on the Entity List, which could create an incentive for these persons to either accelerate receiving items subject to the EAR to conduct activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, including taking steps to set up additional aliases, change addresses, and other measures to try to limit the impact of the listing on the Entity List once a final rule is published. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule.

    5. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment for the two modifications included in this rule because, as described above, they are impracticable and are contrary to the public interest. In addition, these two changes are limited to the addition of the name of an entity on the Entity List under two entries, which will assist the public in more easily identifying this listed person on the Entity List.

    6. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

    List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

    Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

    PART 744—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016); Notice of September 15, 2016, 81 FR 64343 (September 19, 2016); Notice of November 8, 2016, 81 FR 79379 (November 10, 2016); Notice of January 13, 2017, 82 FR 6165 (January 18, 2017).

    2. Supplement No. 4 to part 744 is amended: a. By revising, under China, People's Republic of, one Chinese entity “Alpha Lam, 15H Office Building, Buji Central Plaza, Jihua Road, Buji Longgang, Shenzhen, China (See alternate address under Hong Kong)”; b. By revising, under Hong Kong, one Hong Kong entity “Alpha Lam, Room 1041 Pacific Trade Center No. 2 Kai Hing Road, Kowloon Bay, Hong Kong (See alternate address under China)”; c. By adding, under Pakistan, in alphabetical order, eleven Pakistani entities; d. By adding, under Turkey, in alphabetical order, three Turkish entities; and e. By adding, under the United Arab Emirates, in alphabetical order, two Emirati entities.

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    Supplement No. 4 to Part 744—Entity List Country Entity License
  • requirement
  • License
  • review policy
  • Federal Register
  • citation
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * CHINA, PEOPLE's REPUBLIC OF  *         *         *         *         *         * Xianfa Lin, a.k.a., the following alias:
  • —Alpha Lam.
  • 15H Office Building, Buji Central Plaza, Jihua Road, Buji Longgang, Shenzhen, China (See alternate address under Hong Kong).
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial. 79 FR 32445, 6/5/14. 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
     *         *         *         *         *         * *         *         *         *         *         *         * HONG KONG  *         *         *         *         *         * Xianfa Lin, a.k.a., the following alias:
  • —Alpha Lam.
  • Room 1041 Pacific Trade Center No. 2 Kai Hing Road, Kowloon Bay, Hong Kong (See alternate address under China).
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 79 FR 32445, 6/5/14. 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
     *         *         *         *         *         * *         *         *         *         *         *         * PAKISTAN  *         *         *         *         *         * Creative Dynamics Engineering, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Creative Dynamics.
  • 66/1-M Block 6, PECHS, Karachi, Sindh 75400, Pakistan.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
     *         *         *         *         *         * FACO Trading,
  • 204, Bank & Business Centre Near Duty Free Shop off Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
     *         *         *         *         *         * Imam Group, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Pana Communication Inc.
  • Plot No. 227, St. No. 7, Sector I-9/2, Industrial Area, Near Dry Port, Islamabad, Pakistan; and 70-East A.A. Plaza, Mezz. Floor Blue Area, Islamabad 44000, Capital, Pakistan.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
    Interscan,
  • Sattar Villa B, 32/1-C-1 Block-6, P.E.C.H.S., Karachi 75400i, Singh, Pakistan.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
     *         *         *         *         *         * KMA International Import and Export Co.,
  • Sector I-8/4, House No. 460, Street No. 105, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
     *         *         *         *         *         * Makkays Hi-Tech Systems, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Zaib Electronics.
  • Block 14 Civic Centre, G-6 Markaz, Islamabad, Pakistan; and Kulsum Plaza, 42 Jinnah Avenue, Islamabad, Pakistan; and Basement Khyber Plaza, Barma Town, near Barma Bridge, Lehtrar Road; and House No. 675, Street No. 19 , G-9/3, Islamabad, Pakistan.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
     *         *         *         *         *         * Micado,
  • 40-C, Block-6, P.E.C.H.S., Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi, Singh, Pakistan.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
     *         *         *         *         *         * MSN International,
  • Office No. 32/37, 1st Floor, Behind NBP, Aslam Market, Wah Cantt, Pakistan.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
     *         *         *         *         *         * Oriental Engineers,
  • 11-B Main Gulberg, Lahore, Pakistan.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
     *         *         *         *         *         * Premier International, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Align Impex.
  • Suite E-2, E-Market, DHA EME Sector, Multan Road, Lahore-54500, Pakistan; and Suite 22 1st Floor Lodhi Arcade, 42 Ferozpur Road, Lahore, Pakistan.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
     *         *         *         *         *         * Sumico Technologies,
  • 185-J-1, Muhammad Ali Johar Town, Lahore, Pakistan; and House #307-B Upper Floor Main Margalla Road, F-11/3 Islamabad, Pakistan; and House #E-26 Block A Railway Society, Gulshan-E-Jamal, Karachi, Pakistan.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
     *         *         *         *         *         * *         *         *         *         *         *         * TURKEY  *         *         *         *         *         * Cenk Ozturk,
  • Aktepe Sanayi Sitesi, Kinalikar Sokak, Orta Mahalle No. 19, Orhanli-Tuzla, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
    ERA Metalurji San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti.,
  • Aktepe Sanayi Sitesi, Kinalikar Sokak, Orta Mahalle No. 19, Orhanli-Tuzla, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
     *         *         *         *         *         * Mehmet Cingi,
  • Aktepe Sanayi Sitesi, Kinalikar Sokak, Orta Mahalle No. 19, Orhanli-Tuzla, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
     *         *         *         *         *         * *         *         *         *         *         *         * UNITED ARAB EMIRATES  *         *         *         *         *         * Euromoto Middle East FZE,
  • Q-4 136 Warehouse, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE; and Q1-08-051/B, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE; and P.O. Box 121826, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
     *         *         *         *         *         * Talaat Mehmood,
  • Q-4 136 Warehouse, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE; and Q1-08-051/B, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE; and P.O. Box 121826, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 82 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND 5/26/17].
     *         *         *         *         *         * *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Dated: May 22, 2017. Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10804 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0443] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Charles River, Boston, MA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (Craigie) Bridge across the Charles River, mile 1.0, at Boston, Massachusetts. This deviation is necessary in order to facilitate an annual fireworks display and allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for two hours.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 11 p.m. on July 4, 2017 to 1 a.m. on July 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0443 is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email James L. Rousseau, Senior Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 617-223-8619, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The owner of the bridge, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a public fireworks event.

    The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (Craigie Bridge), mile 1.0, across the Charles River, has a vertical clearance of 5 feet at mean high water and 15 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.591(e).

    This temporary deviation will allow the bridge to remain closed from 11 p.m. July 4, 2017 to 1 a.m. on July 5, 2017. The waterway is used primarily by seasonal recreational vessels and occasional small commercial traffic. Coordination with waterway users has indicated no objections to this short-term closure of the draw.

    Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.

    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 23, 2017. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10855 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0449] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Champlain, North Hero Island, VT AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the US2 Bridge across Lake Champlain, mile 91.8, between North Hero and South Hero Island, Vermont. This deviation is necessary to extend the operating life of the drawbridge until a replacement bridge is constructed. This deviation allows the bridge to open only on the hour during the day for the 2017 boating season.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective without actual notice from May 26, 2017 through 8 p.m. on October 15, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from May 18, 2017, until May 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0449, is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Jeffrey Stieb; Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District, telephone 617-223-8364, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The bridge owner, Vermont Agency of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule of the US2 Bridge, mile 91.8, across Lake Champlain at North Hero Island, Vermont. The drawbridge navigation span has a vertical clearance of 18 feet at ordinary high water in the closed position. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.993(b). The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational vessels of various sizes. Several marina facilities are in the area of the bridge.

    In response to the request, the Coast Guard's First District has approved a deviation from 8 a.m. on May 18, 2017 to 8 p.m. on October 15, 2017, to conduct repairs to extend the life of the machinery which operates the drawbridge. During this deviation, the US2 Bridge shall open on signal only on the hour from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.

    Vessels that are able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies, and for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position there is an alternate route to the north under the Alburg Passage US2 fixed bridge. The Alburg Passage US2 Bridge has a vertical clearance of 26 feet at ordinary high water. The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 23, 2017. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10899 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0444] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Neponset River, Boston, MA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Granite Avenue Bridge across Neponset River, mile 2.5, at Boston, Massachusetts. This deviation is necessary in order to facilitate the McKeon Post Scholarship Road Race and allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for two hours.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on June 18, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0444 is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email James L. Rousseau, Senior Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 617-223-8619, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The owner of the bridge, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a road race. The Granite Avenue Bridge, mile 2.5, across Neponset River, has a vertical clearance of 6 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.611.

    The temporary deviation will allow the Granite Avenue Bridge to remain closed from 9:30 a.m. through 11:30 a.m. on June 18, 2017. The waterway is used primarily by seasonal recreational vessels. Coordination with waterway users has indicated no objections to the proposed short-term closure of the draw.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.

    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 23, 2017. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10856 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0462] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cerritos Channel, Long Beach, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Henry Ford Avenue railroad bridge across Cerritos Channel, mile 4.8 at Long Beach, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to replace the operating machinery of the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 6:30 p.m. on May 27, 2017 to 6:30 p.m. on June 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0462], is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Port of Los Angeles has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Henry Ford Avenue railroad bridge, mile 4.8, over Cerritos Channel, at Long Beach, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 6 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR 117.147(b). Navigation on the waterway is commercial, search and rescue, law enforcement, and recreational.

    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 6:30 p.m. on May 27, 2017 to 6:30 p.m. on June 10, 2017, to allow the bridge owner to replace the operating machinery. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies with between 4 to 24 hours advance notice. Los Angeles Harbor can be used as an alternate route for vessels. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 22, 2017. C.T. Hausner, District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10854 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Part 1 [Docket No.: PTO-P-2017-0002] RIN 0651-AD14 July 2017 Revision of Patent Cooperation Treaty Procedures AGENCY:

    United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) is amending the rules of practice to implement certain amendments made to the Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) that will take effect on July 1, 2017, concerning the transmittal by a Receiving Office to an International Searching Authority of documents relating to an earlier search or classification.

    DATES:

    Effective date: This rule is effective July 1, 2017.

    Applicability date: The changes in this final rule apply to international applications having an international filing date on or after July 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Boris Milef, Senior Legal Examiner, International Patent Legal Administration, at (571) 272-3288.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    During the October 5 to 14, 2015, meeting of the Governing Bodies of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the PCT Assembly adopted a number of amendments to the PCT Regulations having various dates of entry into force. See report adopted by the 47th Assembly of the PCT Union, available at http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/govbody/en/pct_a_47/pct_a_47_9.pdf. This final rule implements the changes to PCT Rules 12bis, 23bis, and 41, concerning the transmittal by the Receiving Office (RO) to the International Searching Authority (ISA) of documents relating to an earlier search or classification. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 361, the USPTO is required to perform all acts connected with the discharge of duties required of an RO. Accordingly, the USPTO is amending the rules of practice to implement these adopted PCT rules. These adopted rules were published in the May 12, 2016, issue of the PCT Gazette at pages 95-99, available on WIPO's Web site at http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/official_notices, and will apply to international applications having an international filing date on or after July 1, 2017.

    Under the current PCT rules, applicants can request the ISA to take into account the results of an earlier search carried out by the same or another ISA or by a national office. See PCT Rule 4.12. Applicants making such a request must submit to the RO a copy of the results of the earlier search, subject to certain exceptions. One exception is where the office acting as the RO has performed the earlier search, the applicant may request the RO to transmit a copy of the results of the earlier search to the ISA rather than submit a copy of the results to the RO. See current PCT Rule 12bis.1(c). Submission of a copy of the results of the earlier search to the RO is also not required where the earlier search was carried out by the same ISA or by the same office as that which is acting as the ISA. See current PCT Rule 12bis.1(d). Nor is the submission of a copy of the results of the earlier search to the RO required where a copy of the search results is available to the ISA in a form and manner acceptable to it, for example, from a digital library. See current PCT Rule 12bis.1(f). The USPTO, in its capacity as an ISA, currently does not obtain a copy of the results of an earlier search pursuant to Rule 12bis.1(f).

    As explained above, the mechanism under the current PCT rules for providing an ISA with a copy of the results of an earlier search is applicant driven. In addition, the current PCT rules do not specifically provide for the transmittal by the RO to the ISA of a copy of the results of any earlier classification available to the RO. To help reduce the workload of ISAs and improve the quality of international search reports, the PCT Regulations were amended to increase the availability of the results of an earlier search or earlier classification to ISAs by providing an Office driven mechanism for furnishing such information to ISAs. A summary of the new PCT Regulations are provided as follows.

    New PCT Rule 23bis.1 concerns the transmittal of documents relating to an earlier search where the applicant has made a request under PCT Rule 4.12 that the ISA take into account the results of an earlier search. Rule 23bis.1(a) provides that the RO shall transmit to the ISA, together with the search copy (see PCT Article 12(1); PCT Rule 23), any copy referred to in Rule 12bis.1(a) related to an earlier search in respect of which the applicant has made a request under Rule 4.12, provided that any such copy: (i) Has been submitted by the applicant to the RO together with the international application; (ii) has been requested by the applicant to be prepared and transmitted by the RO to the ISA; or (iii) is available to the RO in a form and manner acceptable to it, for example, from a digital library, in accordance with Rule 12bis.1(d). Rule 23bis.1(b) further provides that, if the results of any earlier classification are not included in the copy of the results of the earlier search referred to in Rule 12bis.1(a), the RO shall also transmit to the ISA, together with the search copy, a copy of the results of any earlier classification effected by that office, if available.

    New PCT Rule 23bis.2 provides for the transmittal by the RO to the ISA of the copy of the results of an earlier search or earlier classification in respect of an earlier application for which priority is claimed in the international application, where the earlier application is filed with the same office that is acting as the RO and that office has carried out an earlier search in respect of the earlier application or has classified the earlier application. Under this provision, transmittal of a copy of the results of an earlier search or earlier classification by the RO to the ISA will not be required in the following circumstances: (1) Where an RO has notified the International Bureau by April 14, 2016, that it may, on the request of the applicant submitted together with the international application, decide not to transmit the results of an earlier search (Rule 23bis.2(b)); (2) where the earlier search was carried out by the ISA or where the RO is aware that the results are available to the ISA (Rule 23bis.2(d)); and (3) where, to the extent that on October 14, 2015, the transmission of the copies referred to Rule 23bis.2(a) without the authorization by the applicant is not compatible with the national law applied by the RO, the provisions of PCT Rule 23bis.2(a) will not apply with respect to any international application filed with that RO for as long as such transmission without the authorization by the applicant continues not to be compatible with that law, provided that the RO informed the International Bureau accordingly by April 14, 2016 (PCT Rule 23bis.2(e)).

    Under the national law of the United States, unpublished applications for patents are generally required to be kept in confidence by the USPTO and no information concerning the same given without authority of the applicant or owner. See 35 U.S.C. 122; 37 CFR 1.14. Accordingly, the USPTO has notified the International Bureau pursuant to PCT Rule 23bis.2(e) that it will not transmit the copies referred to in Rule 23bis.2 to the extent that the national law of the United States requires that patent applications that have not been published must be kept in confidence unless specifically authorized by the applicant. See the October 20, 2016, issue of the PCT Gazette at pages 210-13, available at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/official_notices/officialnotices16.pdf.

    Discussion of Specific Rules

    The following is a discussion of the amendments to 37 CFR part 1, made pursuant to the amendments to the PCT Regulations.

    37 CFR 1.453: In general, § 1.453 is added to provide the procedures for the transmittal by the USPTO in its capacity as an RO of documents relating to an earlier search or earlier classification in accordance with amendments made to the PCT Regulations that will take effect on July 1, 2017.

    Section 1.453(a) implements the provisions of new PCT Rule 23bis.1 by providing that, where an applicant has requested in an international application filed with the United States Receiving Office (RO/US) pursuant to PCT Rule 4.12 that an ISA take into account the results of an earlier search, the RO/US shall prepare and transmit to the ISA, as applicable, a copy of the results of the earlier search and any earlier classification as provided under PCT Rule 23bis.1. As discussed above, the applicant driven mechanism of PCT Rule 23bis.1 differs from the current applicant driven PCT mechanism by further providing for the automatic transmittal by the RO to the ISA of a copy of the results of any earlier classification effected by the RO. Also, consistent with the USPTO's current practice as an ISA, the USPTO, in its capacity as an RO, does not at the present time contemplate obtaining a copy of the results of an earlier search pursuant to PCT Rule 23bis.1(a)(iii), for example, from a digital library.

    Section 1.453(b) implements the provisions of PCT Rule 23bis.2 by providing that, where an international application filed with the RO/US claims the priority of an earlier application filed with the USPTO in which the USPTO has carried out an earlier search or has classified such earlier application, the RO/US shall prepare and transmit to the ISA a copy of the results of any such earlier search and earlier classification as provided under PCT Rule 23bis.2. This automatic process is triggered based on the presence of a priority claim in the PCT application to an application in which the USPTO carried out an earlier search or has classified the earlier application.

    The RO/US will not retrieve the results of an earlier search or earlier classification conducted by an office other than the USPTO. Section 1.453(c), therefore, is limited to applications held in confidence by the USPTO and is not directed to applications held in confidence by offices other than the USPTO. In accordance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122 and the aforementioned notification under PCT Rule 23bis.2(e) by the USPTO, § 1.453(a) and (b) are subject to the provisions of § 1.453(c), which provides that the RO/US will not prepare a copy of the results of the earlier search or earlier classification referred to in § 1.453(a) or (b) for transmittal to an ISA from an application preserved in confidence by the USPTO under § 1.14 unless the international application contains written authority granting the ISA access to such results. Section 1.453(c) further provides that such written authority must be signed by an applicant in the international application who is also an applicant in the application preserved in confidence or by a person set forth in § 1.14(c) permitted to grant access to the application preserved in confidence. The Office anticipates that the PCT Request form (PCT/RO/101) will be revised to provide the option to include written authority therein. The provisions of § 1.453(c) will permit, inter alia, an applicant in the international application to sign the written authority (either directly or through applicant's representative (§ 1.455)), provided that applicant is also an applicant in the application that is preserved in confidence.

    Rulemaking Considerations

    A. Administrative Procedure Act: This final rule implements changes made to the Regulations under the PCT and involves changes to the rules of agency practice and procedure and/or interpretive rules. See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1204 (2015) (Interpretive rules “advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Rule that clarifies interpretation of a statute is interpretive.); Bachow Commc'ns Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Rules governing an application process are procedural under the Administrative Procedure Act.); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2001) (Rules for handling appeals were procedural where they did not change the substantive standard for reviewing claims.).

    Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for the changes in this rulemaking are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c), or any other law. See Perez, 135 S. Ct. at 1206 (Notice-and-comment procedures are required neither when an agency “issue[s] an initial interpretive rule” nor “when it amends or repeals that interpretive rule.”); Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), does not require notice and comment rulemaking for “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” (quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A))).

    Alternatively, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and opportunity for public comment are inapplicable because this rulemaking involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). The USPTO, in its capacity as an RO, is required to perform all acts connected with the discharge of duties required of an RO. See 35 U.S.C. 361. This final rule adopts changes required to conform the rules of practice for international applications to the amendments to the PCT Regulations, which will become effective on July 1, 2017. Thus, this final rule is covered by the foreign affairs function exception of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) and may be adopted without prior notice and opportunity for public comment. See Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Pena, 17 F.3d 1478, 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: As prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, neither a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis nor a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is required. See 5 U.S.C. 603.

    C. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs): This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).

    The Office has complied with Executive Order 13563. Specifically, the Office has, to the extent feasible and applicable: (1) Made a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs of the rule; (2) tailored the rule to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; (3) selected a regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits; (4) specified performance objectives; (5) identified and assessed available alternatives; (6) involved the public in an open exchange of information and perspectives among experts in relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector and the public as a whole, and provided on-line access to the rulemaking docket; (7) attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization across government agencies and identified goals designed to promote innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and (9) ensured the objectivity of scientific and technological information and processes.

    Because this rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866, the requirements of Executive Order 13771 (Jan. 30, 2017) do not apply. See Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” at page 3 (OMB mem.) (April 5, 2017). Alternatively, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13771 as it does not meet the definition of “regulation” or “rule” under Section 4 of Executive Order 13771, which excludes regulations issued with respect to a military, national security, or foreign affairs function of the United States.

    D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This rulemaking does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).

    E. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation): This rulemaking will not: (1) Have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; or (3) preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required under Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6, 2000).

    F. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects): This rulemaking is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this rulemaking is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required under Executive Order 13211 (May 18, 2001).

    G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform): This rulemaking meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).

    H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children): This rulemaking does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children under Executive Order 13045 (Apr. 21, 1997).

    I. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property): This rulemaking will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988).

    J. Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to issuing any final rule, the USPTO will submit a report containing the final rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office. The changes in this notice are not expected to result in an annual effect on the economy of 100 million dollars or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Therefore, this notice is not expected to result in a “major rule” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    K. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth in this notice do not involve a federal intergovernmental mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, or a federal private sector mandate that will result in the expenditure by the private sector of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

    L. National Environmental Policy Act: This rulemaking will not have any effect on the quality of the environment and is thus categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

    M. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act: The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not applicable because this rulemaking does not contain provisions that involve the use of technical standards.

    N. Paperwork Reduction Act: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that the Office consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. This rulemaking involves information collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3549). The collection of information involved in this rule has been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under control number 0651-0021.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Biologics, Courts, Freedom of information Inventions and patents, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 37 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

    PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES 1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 1.453 is added under the center heading “Priority” to read as follows:
    § 1.453 Transmittal of documents relating to earlier search or classification.

    (a) Subject to paragraph (c) of this section, where an applicant has requested in an international application filed with the United States Receiving Office pursuant to PCT Rule 4.12 that an International Searching Authority take into account the results of an earlier search, the United States Receiving Office shall prepare and transmit to the International Searching Authority, as applicable, a copy of the results of the earlier search and any earlier classification as provided under PCT Rule 23bis.1.

    (b) Subject to paragraph (c) of this section, where an international application filed with the United States Receiving Office claims the priority of an earlier application filed with the USPTO in which the USPTO has carried out an earlier search or has classified such earlier application, the United States Receiving Office shall prepare and transmit to the International Searching Authority a copy of the results of any such earlier search and earlier classification as provided under PCT Rule 23bis.2.

    (c) The United States Receiving Office will not prepare a copy of the results of an earlier search or earlier classification referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section for transmittal to an International Searching Authority from an application preserved in confidence (§ 1.14) unless the international application contains written authority granting the International Searching Authority access to such results. Written authority provided under this paragraph must be signed by:

    (1) An applicant in the international application who is also an applicant in the application preserved in confidence; or

    (2) A person set forth in § 1.14(c) permitted to grant access to the application preserved in confidence.

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10870 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 161020985-7181-02] RIN 0648-XF458 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Exchange of Flatfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; reallocation.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is exchanging unused yellowfin sole Community Development Quota (CDQ) for rock sole CDQ acceptable biological catch (ABC) reserves in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area. This action is necessary to allow the 2017 total allowable catch of rock sole in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area to be harvested.

    DATES:

    Effective May 26, 2017 through December 31, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

    The 2017 rock sole and yellowfin sole CDQ reserves specified in the BSAI are 5,040 metric tons (mt), and 16,478 mt as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826; February 27, 2017). The 2017 rock sole and yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves are 11,556 mt and 11,428 mt as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826; February 27, 2017).

    The Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association has requested that NMFS exchange 700 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ reserves for 700 mt of rock sole CDQ ABC reserves under § 679.31(d). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.31(d), NMFS exchanges 700 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ reserves for 700 mt of rock sole CDQ ABC reserves in the BSAI. This action also decreases and increases the TACs and CDQ ABC reserves by the corresponding amounts. Tables 11 and 13 of the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826; February 27, 2017), are revised as follows:

    Table 11—Final 2017 Community Development Quota (CDQ) Reserves, Incidental Catch Amounts (ICAS), and Amendment 80 Allocations of the Aleutian Islands Pacific Ocean Perch, and BSAI Flathead Sole, Rock Sole, and Yellowfin Sole TACS [Amounts are in metric tons] Sector Pacific ocean perch Eastern
  • Aleutian
  • District
  • Central
  • Aleutian
  • District
  • Western
  • Aleutian
  • District
  • Flathead sole BSAI Rock sole BSAI Yellowfin sole BSAI
    TAC 7,900 7,000 9,000 14,500 47,800 153,300 CDQ 845 749 963 1,552 5,740 15,778 ICA 100 60 10 4,000 5,000 4,500 BSAI trawl limited access 695 619 161 0 0 18,151 Amendment 80 6,259 5,572 7,866 8,949 37,060 114,871 Alaska Groundfish Cooperative 3,319 2,954 4,171 918 9,168 45,638 Alaska Seafood Cooperative 2,940 2,617 3,695 8,031 27,893 69,233 Note: Sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
    Table 13—Final 2017 and 2018 ABC Surplus, Community Development Quota (CDQ) ABC Reserves, and Amendment 80 ABC Reserves in the BSAI for Flathead Sole, Rock Sole, and Yellowfin Sole [Amounts are in metric tons] Sector 2017 Flathead sole 2017 Rock sole 2017 Yellowfin sole 2018 Flathead sole 2018 Rock sole 2018 Yellowfin sole ABC 68,278 155,100 260,800 66,164 143,100 250,800 TAC 14,500 47,800 153,300 14,500 47,100 154,000 ABC surplus 53,778 107,300 107,500 51,664 96,000 96,800 ABC reserve 53,778 107,300 107,500 51,664 96,000 96,800 CDQ ABC reserve 5,754 10,856 12,128 5,528 10,272 10,358 Amendment 80 ABC reserve 48,024 96,444 95,372 46,136 85,728 86,442 Alaska Groundfish Cooperative for 2017 1 4,926 23,857 37,891 n/a n/a n/a Alaska Seafood Cooperative for 2017 1 43,098 72,587 57,481 n/a n/a n/a 1 The 2018 allocations for Amendment 80 species between Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access sector will not be known until eligible participants apply for participation in the program by November 1, 2017. Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the flatfish exchange by the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association in the BSAI. Since these fisheries are currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of May 18, 2017.

    The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

    This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 23, 2017. Margo B. Schulze-Haugen, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10861 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 101 Friday, May 26, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 984 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-16-0053; SC-16-984-1 PR] Walnuts Grown in California; Proposed Amendment to Marketing Order 984 and Referendum Order AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed amendment and referendum order.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule proposes one amendment to Marketing Order No. 984 (order), which regulates the handling of walnuts grown in California, and provides growers with the opportunity to vote in a referendum to determine if they favor the change. This amendment was proposed by the California Walnut Board (Board), which is responsible for the local administration of the order and is comprised of walnut growers and handlers operating within the production area. The amendment would authorize the Board to borrow from a commercial lending institution to fund operations and marketing/research expenses. This proposed amendment is intended to reflect a customary business practice that will provide greater flexibility to the Board while increasing its effectiveness.

    DATES:

    The referendum will be conducted from August 7, 2017, through August 18, 2017. The representative period for the purpose of the referendum is September 1, 2015, through August 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Geronimo Quinones, Marketing Specialist, or Julie Santoboni, Rulemaking Branch Chief, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

    Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposal is issued under Marketing Order No. 984, as amended (7 CFR part 984), regulating the handling of walnuts grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

    The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

    This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposal is not intended to have retroactive effect.

    The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

    Section 1504 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 110-246) amended section 8c(17) of the Act, which in turn required the addition of supplemental rules of practice to 7 CFR part 900 (73 FR 49307; August 21, 2008). The additional supplemental rules of practice authorize the use of informal rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553) to amend Federal fruit, vegetable, and nut marketing agreements and orders. USDA may use informal rulemaking to amend marketing orders based on the nature and complexity of the proposed amendment, the potential regulatory and economic impacts on affected entities, and any other relevant matters.

    AMS has considered these factors and has determined that the amendment proposal is not unduly complex and the nature of the proposed amendment is appropriate for utilizing the informal rulemaking process to amend the order.

    The proposed amendment was unanimously recommended by the Board following deliberations at a public meeting held on February 19, 2016.

    A proposed rule soliciting comments on the proposed amendment was issued on September 12, 2016, and published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2016 (81 FR 63721). Two comments were received, both in support of the amendment. AMS will conduct a grower referendum to determine support for the proposed amendment. If appropriate, a final rule will then be issued to effectuate the amendment favored by growers in the referendum.

    The Board's proposed amendment would amend the order by authorizing the Board to borrow from a commercial lending institution during times of cash shortage to help ensure continuity of operations.

    Proposal—Borrowing From a Commercial Lending Institution

    Section 984.69 of the order, Assessments, authorizes the Board to collect assessments from handlers to administer the program.

    This proposal would provide the Board with authority to borrow from a commercial lending institution during times of cash shortages. In the past, the Board has utilized reserve funds collected through handler assessments to help finance the advertising/marketing program. However, due to the increased size of the domestic advertising program, relying on reserve funds as a means to meet obligations could make the program unsustainable in the long term. History shows the most costly part of the program runs during the first six months of the marketing year, and those expenditures must be paid by mid-year. Since the payments must be made before all assessment fees are invoiced and collected, a cash shortage may occur during the year. Authorizing the Board to borrow from a commercial lending institution would help manage and sustain the program during times of low income while also ensuring continuity of operations.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated above, it is proposed that § 984.69, Assessments, be amended by adding a new paragraph that would provide the Board with authority to borrow from a commercial lending institution when no other funding is available.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13771, and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    This rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017). Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

    The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

    There are approximately 5,700 growers of California walnuts in the production area and approximately 90 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration defines small agricultural growers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 and defines small agricultural service firms as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

    According to USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service's (NASS's) 2012 Census of Agriculture, approximately 86 percent of California's walnut farms were smaller than 100 acres. Further, NASS reports that the average yield for 2014 was 1.97 tons per acre, and the average price received for 2014 was $3,230 per ton.

    A 100-acre farm with an average yield of 1.97 tons per acre would therefore have been expected to produce about 197 tons of walnuts during 2014-15 marketing year. At $3,230 per ton, that farm's production would have had an approximate value of $636,310. Since Census of Agriculture information indicates that the majority of California's walnut farms are smaller than 100 acres, it could be concluded that the majority of the growers had receipts of less than $636,310 in 2014-15, which is well below the SBA threshold of $750,000. Thus, the majority of California's walnut growers would be considered small growers according to SBA's definition.

    According to information supplied by the Board, approximately two-thirds of California's walnut handlers shipped merchantable walnuts valued under $7,500,000 during the 2014-15 marketing year and would, therefore, be considered small handlers according to the SBA definition.

    The amendment proposed by the Board would authorize the Board to borrow from commercial lending institutions. This would help to ensure continuity in operations.

    The Board reviewed and identified the most costly portion of its domestic advertising program. That portion of the program operates during the first six months of the Board's marketing year and costs must be paid by mid-year. Since assessment revenues are collected throughout the marketing year, not enough is on hand when these large payments are due. In the past, the Board has used reserve funds to help pay for marketing and advertising expenses. However, due to the increased size of the advertising program, the Board cannot rely on reserve funds to cover the costs. Based on this fact, the Board believes the program could become unsustainable in the long term.

    While this action could result in a temporary increase in handler assessment costs, these increases would be small and uniform on all handlers and proportional to the size of their businesses. These costs are expected to be offset by the benefits derived from a sustained marketing and advertising program. Additionally, these costs would help to ensure that the Board has sufficient funds to meet its financial obligations. Such stability is expected to allow the Board to conduct a program that would benefit all entities, regardless of size. California walnut growers should see an improved business environment and a more sustainable business model because of the improved business efficiency.

    Alternatives were considered to this proposal, including making no change at this time. However, the Board believes it would be beneficial to have the means and funds necessary to effectively administer the program.

    A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, “Vegetable and Specialty Crops.” No changes are necessary in those requirements as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

    This proposed amendment would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California walnut handlers.

    As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

    AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

    The Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California walnut production area. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to participate in Board deliberations on this issue. Like all Board meetings, the February 19, 2016, meeting was public, and all entities, both large and small, were encouraged to express their views on the proposal.

    A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2016 (81 FR 63721). Copies of the rule were mailed or sent via facsimile to all Board members. Finally, the rule was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 60-day comment period ending November 16, 2016, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal.

    Two comments were received in support of the proposal. Therefore, no changes have been made to the proposed amendment as a result of the comments received.

    Findings and Conclusions

    The findings and conclusions and general findings and determinations included in the proposed rule set forth in the September 16, 2016, issue of the Federal Register are hereby approved and adopted.

    Marketing Order

    Annexed hereto and made a part hereof is the document entitled “Order Amending the Order Regulating the Handling of Walnuts Grown in California.” This document has been decided upon as the detailed and appropriate means of effectuating the foregoing findings and conclusions. It is hereby ordered, that this entire rule be published in the Federal Register.

    Referendum Order

    It is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted in accordance with the procedure for the conduct of referenda (7 CFR part 900.400-407) to determine whether the annexed order amending the order regulating the handling of Walnuts Grown in California is approved by growers, as defined under the terms of the order, who during a representative period were engaged in the production of walnuts in the production area.

    The representative period for the conduct of such referendum is hereby determined to be September 1, 2015, through August 31, 2016.

    The agents of the Secretary to conduct such referendum are designated to be Terry Vawter and Jeffrey Smutny, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected], respectively.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 984

    Walnuts, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. Order Amending the Order Regulating the Handling of Walnuts Grown in California 1

    1 This order shall not become effective unless and until the requirements of § 900.14 of the rules of practice and procedure governing proceedings to formulate marketing agreements and marketing orders have been met.

    Findings and Determinations

    The findings hereinafter set forth are supplementary to the findings and determinations which were previously made in connection with the issuance of the marketing order; and all said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.

    1. The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;

    2. The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, regulates the handling of walnuts grown in California in the same manner as, and are applicable only to, persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the marketing order;

    3. The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, is limited in application to the smallest regional production area which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;

    4. The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, prescribe, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of walnuts produced in the production area; and

    5. All handling of walnuts produced in the production area as defined in the marketing order is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.

    Order Relative to Handling

    It is therefore ordered, that on and after the effective date hereof, all handling of walnuts grown in California shall be in conformity to, and in compliance with, the terms and conditions of the said order as hereby proposed to be amended as follows:

    The provisions of the proposed marketing order amending the order contained in the proposed rule issued by the Administrator on September 12, 2016, and published in the Federal Register (81 FR 63721) on September 16, 2016, will be and are the terms and provisions of this order amending the order and are set forth in full herein.

    PART 984—WALNUTS GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 984 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 601-674.

    2. Amend 984.69 by redesignating paragraph (d) as (e) and adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 984.69 Assessments.

    (d) To provide funds for the administration of the provisions of this part during the part of a fiscal period when neither sufficient operating reserve funds nor sufficient revenue from assessments on the current season's certifications are available, the Board may accept payment of assessments in advance or may borrow money from a commercial lending institution for such purposes.

    [FR Doc. 2017-10676 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0140; Directorate Identifier 2017-NE-05-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) model Tay 620-15 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by RRD recalculating the life limit for certain high-pressure compressor (HPC) stage 12 rotor disks. This proposed AD would require reducing the maximum approved life limit. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this NPRM by July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11-15827 Dahlewitz, Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: +49 0 33-7086-1944; fax: +49 0 33-7086-3276. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0140; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0140; Directorate Identifier 2017-NE-05-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2017-0010, dated January 16, 2017 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Based on revised stress analysis and life calculation, Rolls-Royce Deutschland (RRD) determined new provisional life limits for HPC stage 12 rotor disc Part Number (P/N) JR18449, reducing the maximum approved life limit defined in the Tay 620-15 and Tay 620-15/20 engine Time Limits Manual (TLM), Chapter 05-10-01, Task 05-10-01-800-000, currently at revision dated 15 September 2014. Failure to replace a HPC stage 12 rotor disc P/N JR18449, before exceeding the thresholds defined by this AD, could lead to an uncontained HPC stage 12 rotor disc failure, possibly resulting in damage to, and/or reduced control of, the aeroplane.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0140.

    Related Service Information

    RRD has issued Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) TAY-72-A1813, dated October 11, 2016. The Alert NMSB provides instructions to determine or re-calculate the consumed and remaining service life. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Germany, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require reducing the maximum approved life limit for HPC stage 12 rotor disk, part number JR18449.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 25 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Pro-rated life 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $3,858 $3,943 $98,575
    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG: Docket No. FAA-2017-0140; Directorate Identifier 2017-NE-05-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 10, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) model Tay 620-15 turbofan engines with high-pressure compressor (HPC) modules M03100AA, or M03100AB, or M03100AC and HPC stage 12 rotor disk part number (P/N) JR18449 installed.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by RRD recalculating the life limit for HPC stage 12 rotor disk P/N JR18449. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC stage 12 rotor disk, uncontained HPC stage 12 rotor disk release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, determine whether the HPC stage 12 rotor disk has operated in both flight profiles A and B. If the rotor disk was operated, or is operating, in both flight profiles A and B, re-calculate the consumed cyclic life using 16,700 flight cycles (FC) as the maximum approved life limit for flight profile B.

    (2) After the effective date of this AD, the maximum approved life limit for affected rotor disks operating in flight profile B is 16,700 FC. Calculate the consumed cyclic life accumulated since new using 16,700 FC as the maximum approved life limit for flight profile B.

    (3) For those engines operating in flight profile B with an HPC stage 12 rotor disk P/N JR18449 installed, that do not have an engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD before the re-calculated consumed cyclic life of the HPC stage 12 disk exceeds 16,700 FC, remove the affected rotor disk from service before the re-calculated consumed cyclic life exceeds the threshold(s) defined in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.

    Figure 1 to Paragraph (g)—Remove Affected Rotor Disks From Service Recalculated consumed cyclic life on the effective date of this AD Remove affected rotor disks from service (i) less than 15,700 FC Before exceeding 16,700 FC since new (ii) 15,700 FC or more, but less than 16,700 FC Either:
  • (A) Within 1,000 FC or 19 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first; or
  • (B) Before exceeding 16,700 FC since new,
  • whichever occurs later.
  • (iii) 16,700 FC or more Either: (A) Within 1,000 FC after the effective date of this AD, or (B) Before exceeding 20,000 FC since new, or (C) Within 19 months after the effective date of this AD,
  • whichever occurs first.
  • (h) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, installation of a serviceable spare engine or release to service of an engine after any shop visit, is allowed, provided the installed HPC stage 12 rotor disk, P/N JR18449, is a serviceable part.

    (i) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable part is an HPC stage 12 rotor disk, P/N JR18449, that has not exceeded 20,500 FC for flight profile A or 16,700 FC for flight profile B, as applicable to engine operation.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), AD 2017-0010, dated January 16, 2017, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2017-0140.

    (3) RRD Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) TAY-72-A1813, dated October 11, 2016, can be obtained from RRD, using the contact information in paragraph (k)(4) of this proposed AD.

    (4) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11-15827 Dahlewitz, Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: +49 0 33-7086-1944; fax: +49 0 33-7086-3276.

    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 3, 2017. Robert J. Ganley, Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10439 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0439; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-010-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; B/E Aerospace Protective Breathing Equipment Part Number 119003-11 and Part Number 119003-21 AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-11-20, which applies to certain B/E Aerospace protective breathing equipment (PBE) that is installed on airplanes. AD 2016-11-20 requires replacing part number (P/N) 119003-11 PBE units. Since we issued AD 2016-11-20, we received a report that PBE units, P/N 119003-21, within a certain serial number range are made with candle tube material determined to have a low yield strength and may be volatile upon use or disposal. This proposed AD would retain the actions required in AD 2016-11-20 and would require inspecting and replacing P/N 119003-11 and 119003-21 PBE units. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact B/E Aerospace, Inc., Commercial Aircraft Products Group, 10800 Pflumm Road, Lenexa, Kansas 66215; phone: (913) 338-9800; fax: (913) 338-8419; Internet: www.beaerospace.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0439; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Enns, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 S. Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: (316) 946-4147; fax: (316) 946-4107; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0439; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-010-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    On May 25, 2016, we issued AD 2016-11-20, Amendment 39-18547 (81 FR 37492, June 10, 2016), (“AD 2016-11-20”), for B/E Aerospace Protective Breathing Equipment (PBE), part number (P/N) 119003-11, that is installed on airplanes. AD 2016-11-20 requires replacing all PBE, P/N 119003-11, with PBE, P/N 119003-21. AD 2016-11-20 resulted from a report of a PBE unit, P/N 119003-11, catching fire upon activation by a crewmember. We issued AD 2016-11-20 to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    Actions Since AD 2016-11-20 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2016-11-20, we received a report that a mechanic incurred a minor injury when he activated the affected PBE unit as part of the disposal process. The igniter candle in the PBE supplies the user with oxygen during the first 20 seconds after activation. For PBE units with a serial number within the serial number range identified in this proposed AD, the candle tube material was determined to have a low yield strength. This can result in inadequate retention of the end fitting during activation, and the candle may eject from the PBE as a high speed projectile.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin No. 119003-35-011, Rev. 000, dated February 4, 2015; Service Bulletin 119003-35-009, Rev. 001, dated April 12, 2016; and Service Bulletin No. 119003-35-013, Rev. 001, dated February 24, 2017. B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin No. 119003-35-011, Rev. 000, dated February 4, 2015, describes procedures for inspecting PBE, P/N 119003-11, to determine if the vacuum seal of the pouch containing the PBE is compromised; B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin No. 119003-35-009, Rev. 001, dated April 12, 2016, describes procedures for replacing PBE, P/N 119003-11 with P/N 119003-21; and B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin No. 119003-35-013, Rev. 001, dated February 24, 2017, describes procedures for inspecting PBE P/N 119003-21 to determine the serial number and replacing any within the specified serial number range. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2016-11-20. This proposed AD would also require inspecting PBE P/N 119003-21 to determine the serial number and replacing any within the specified serial number range.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    We are not proposing to require the disposal of the PBE as specified in the related service information because we have determined that owner/operators use various methods for disposal, which includes returning the PBE to the manufacturer. Therefore, we have not proposed the use of only one method of disposal. However, given the potential concern with activation of certain PBE units during disposal, we encourage coordination with the manufacturer and awareness of the disposal methods.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 9,000 products installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspecting the pouch containing the PBE for proper vacuum seal .5 work-hour × $85 per hour = $42.50 Not applicable $42.50 $382,500 Replace PBE P/N 119003-11 with PBE P/N 119003-21 .5 work-hour × $85 per hour = $42.50 $1,510 1,552.50 13,972,500 Inspecting the PBE to determine whether an affected PBE P/N 119003-21 is installed .5 work-hour × $85 per hour = $42.50 Not applicable 42.50 382,500

    We estimate the following costs to replace any affected PBE P/N 119003-21 units that fall within the affected serial number range. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs/replacements:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement of PBE P/N 119003-21 .5 work-hour × $85 per hour = $42.50 $1,510 $1,552.50

    The cost difference between AD 2016-11-20 and this proposed AD is the cost of inspecting for serial number determination and replacing the affected serial numbers. This part of the proposed AD could potentially affect 2,070 PBE units.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-11-20, Amendment 39-18547 (81 FR 37492, June 10, 2016), and adding the following new AD: B/E Aerospace: Docket No. FAA-2017-0439; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-010-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 10, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2016-11-20, Amendment 39-18547 (81 FR 37492, June 10, 2016), (“AD 2016-11-20”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to B/E Aerospace Protective Breathing Equipment (PBE), part numbers (P/N) 119003-11 and 119003-21, that are installed on airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35; Oxygen.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    AD 2016-11-20 was prompted by a report of a PBE unit, P/N 119003-11, catching fire upon activation by a crewmember. This AD was prompted by a report that PBE units, P/N 119003-21, within a certain serial number range are made with candle tube material determined to have a low yield strength and may be volatile upon use or disposal. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Inspection Retained From AD 2016-11-20 for Airplanes With PBE, P/N 119003-11, Installed

    Within 3 months after July 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-11-20), while still in the stowage box, physically inspect the PBE pouch to determine if it has an intact vacuum seal. Do this inspection following paragraph III.A.(1) of the Accomplishment Instructions in B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin No. 119003-35-011, Rev. 000, dated February 4, 2015.

    (h) Replacement Retained From AD 2016-11-20 for Airplanes With PBE, P/N 119003-11, Installed

    (1) During the inspection required in paragraph (g) of this AD, if a PBE pouch is found that does not have an intact vacuum seal, before further flight or following existing MEL procedures, replace the PBE with a PBE unit, P/N 119003-21 that is not within the serial number (S/N) range 004-14768M through 004-21093M or 004-02393M through 004-03033M, following paragraphs III.C., III.D.(4), III.D.(6), and III.D.(7) of the Accomplishment Instructions in B/E Aerospace SB No. 119003-35-009, Rev. 001, dated April 12, 2016, or replace it with another FAA-approved PBE installation.

    (2) During the inspection required in paragraph (g) of this AD, if a PBE pouch is found where the vacuum seal is intact, within 18 months after July 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-11-20), remove PBE, P/N 119003-11, and replace it with a PBE, P/N 119003-21 that is not within the S/N range 004-14768M through 004-21093M or 004-02393M through 004-03033M, following paragraphs III.C., III.D.(4), III.D.(6), and III.D.(7) of the Accomplishment Instructions in B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin No. 119003-35-009, Rev. 001, dated April 12, 2016, or replace it with another FAA-approved PBE installation.

    (i) New Inspection for Airplanes With PBE, P/N 119003-21, Installed

    Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect PBE, P/N 119003-21, to determine if the S/N is within the range of 004-14768M through 004-21093M or 004-02393M through 004-03033M. Do this inspection following paragraph III.A of the Accomplishment Instructions in B/E Aerospace SB No. 119003-35-013, Rev. 001 dated February 24, 2017.

    (j) New Replacement for Airplanes With PBE, P/N 119003-21, Installed

    During the inspection required in paragraph (i) of this AD, if it is found that the PBE, P/N 119003-21, is within the S/N range specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, before further flight or following existing MEL procedures, remove the PBE and replace it with a PBE, P/N 119003-21, that does not have a S/N 004-14768M through 004-21093M or 004-02393M through 004-03033M. Do this replacement following paragraphs III.C., III.D.(4), III.D.(6), and III.D.(7) of the Accomplishment Instructions in B/E Aerospace SB No. 119003-35-013, Rev. 001, dated February 24, 2017, or replace it with another FAA-approved PBE installation.

    (k) Prohibited Installation

    As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a PBE, P/N 119003-21, that has a S/N within the range of 004-14768M through 004-21093M or 004-02393M through 004-03033M.

    (l) Credit for Actions Done Following Previous Service Information

    If you performed the inspection and replacement action required in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD before the effective date of this AD using B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin No. 119003-35-013, Rev. 001, dated January 9, 2017, you met the requirements of those paragraphs of this AD.

    (m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact David Enns, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, FAA, 1801 S. Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: (316) 946-4147; fax: (316) 946-4107; email: [email protected].

    (2) For B/E Aerospace, Inc. service information identified in this AD, contact B/E Aerospace, Inc., 10800 Pflumm Road, Commercial Aircraft Products Group, Lenexa, Kansas 66215; phone: (913) 338-9800; fax: (913) 338-8419; Internet: www.beaerospace.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 3, 2017. Melvin Johnson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10409 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0433; Directorate Identifier 94-ANE-39-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2014-24-08 that applies to all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-C-37 turbofan engines with certain low-pressure (LP) fuel filter-to-high-pressure (HP) fuel pump tube assemblies, or HP fuel pump-to-fuel flow governor (FFG) or FFG-to-HP pump inlet overspill return tube assemblies and flanged adaptor installed. AD 2014-24-08 requires replacing certain LP fuel filter-to-HP fuel pump tube assemblies. Since we issued AD 2014-24-08, fuel leaks have occurred at the flanged joints of the HP fuel pump-to-FFG tube assembly and FFG-to-HP pump inlet overspill return tube assembly. This proposed AD would retain the original AD requirements and also require installation of new HP fuel pump-to-FFG and FFG-to-HP pump inlet overspill return tube assemblies and flanged adaptor. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0433.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0433; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information, regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0433; Directorate Identifier 94-ANE-39-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

    Discussion

    On November 20, 2014, we issued AD 2014-24-08, Amendment 39-18041 (79 FR 71308, December 2, 2014), “AD 2014-24-08,” for all RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-C-37 turbofan engines. AD 2014-24-08 expands the applicability to include the RB211-535E4-C-37 turbofan engine and requires removal from service of additional part number (P/N) LP fuel filter-to-HP fuel pump tube assemblies. AD 2014-24-08 resulted from reports of fuel leaks that resulted in engine in-flight shutdowns. We issued AD 2014-24-08 to prevent loss of fuel supply to the engine, which could lead to the in-flight shutdown of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.

    Actions Since AD 2014-24-08 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2014-24-08, fuel leaks have occurred at the flanged joints of the HP fuel pump-to-FFG and FFG-to-HP pump inlet overspill return tube assemblies. Also since we issued AD 2014-24-08, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has issued AD 2017-0006, dated January 10, 2017.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Rolls-Royce plc has issued Service Bulletin (SB) RB.211-73-G230, Revision 3, dated April 8, 2016. The SB describes a modification (mod 73-G230) and introduces new HP fuel pump-to-FFG and FFG-to-HP pump inlet overspill return tube assemblies with a larger O-ring groove on the end adaptor sealing face. RR has also issued Service Bulletin SB RB.211-73-H131, Revision 1, dated September 2, 2014. The SB introduces a new LP fuel filter-to-HP fuel pump tube assembly. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain the original AD requirements and also require installing new HP fuel pump-to-FFG or FFG-to-HP pump inlet overspill return tube assemblies and flanged adaptor. This proposed AD changes the compliance requirement for replacing the LP fuel filter-to-HP fuel pump tube assembly adding a not to exceed flight hour/flight cycle life limit, consistent with the EASA AD requirements. This proposed AD would also prohibit re-installation of earlier HP fuel pump-to-FFG and FFG-to-HP pump inlet overspill return tube assemblies, as well as LP fuel filter to HP pump tube assemblies, P/N AE709623-1.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 100 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Replacement of fuel tube assemblies 8.5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $722.50 $17,800.00 $18,522.50 $1,852,250.00
    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 2014-24-08, Amendment 39-18041 (79 FR 71308, December 2, 2014), and adding the following new AD: Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA-2014-0433; Directorate Identifier 94-ANE-39-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 10, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2014-24-08, Amendment 39-18041 (79 FR 71308, December 2, 2014).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-C-37 turbofan engines with low-pressure (LP) fuel filter-to-high-pressure (HP) fuel pump tube assembly, part numbers (P/Ns) UL16692, AE709623-1, 163521538, or 163521545 installed; or HP fuel pump-to-fuel flow governor (FFG) P/N UL16691 or P/N UL37214; or FFG-to-HP pump inlet overspill return tube assemblies P/N UL16690 or P/N UL37213; or flanged adaptor, P/N UL37218 installed.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7321, Fuel Control/Turbine Engines.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of fuel leaks that have resulted in engine in-flight shutdowns. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of fuel supply to the engine, which could lead to the in-flight shutdown of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Required Actions

    (1) After the effective date of this AD, replace LP fuel filter-to-HP fuel pump tube assembly, before the part exceeds 4,750 engine flight cycles (FC) or 15,000 flight hours (FH), since new, or during the next shop visit, whichever occurs first, using the Accomplishment Instructions of RR Service Bulletin (SB) RB.211-73-H131, Revision 1, dated September 2, 2014.

    (2) After the effective date of this AD, for affected engines with an HP fuel pump-to-FFG tube assembly or FFG-to-HP pump inlet overspill return tube assembly, or flanged adaptor, installed, replace the parts concurrent with the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if applicable, or during the next shop visit, using the Accomplishment Instructions of RR SB RB.211-73-G230, Revision 3, dated April 8, 2016.

    (h) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install on any engine an LP fuel filter-to-HP fuel pump tube assembly, P/N UL16692, AE709623-1, 163521538, or 163521545; HP fuel pump-to-FFG tube assembly, P/N UL16691 or P/N UL37214, or FFG-to-HP pump inlet overspill return tube assembly, P/N UL16690 or UL37213; or flanged adaptor, P/N UL37218.

    (i) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, a shop visit is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance or overhaul. The separation of engine flanges solely for the purpose of transporting the engine without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2017-0006, dated January 10, 2017, and EASA AD 2014-0123, dated May 15, 2014, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2014-0433.

    (3) RR SB RB.211-73-H131, Revision 1, dated September 2, 2014 and RR SB RB.211-73-G230, Revision 3, dated April 8, 2016, can be obtained from RR, using the contact information in paragraph (k)(4) of this AD.

    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare.

    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 5, 2017. Robert J. Ganley, Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10440 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-0230; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-8] Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, New Bern, NC AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class D and Class E airspace at Coastal Carolina Regional Airport (formally Craven County Regional Airport), New Bern, NC. The Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status would be removed from Class E airspace designated as an extension, as well as the segment using the New Bern VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid used to describe the northeast and southwest extensions to the airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of the airport, update the airport's name, and make an editorial change replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the legal descriptions of associated Class D and E airspace.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg. Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or 202-366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2016-0230; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-8, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html. FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone 404-305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Coastal Carolina Regional Airport, New Bern, NC.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-0230; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-8.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 to amend Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Coastal Carolina Regional Airport (formerly Craven County Regional Airport), New Bern, NC. The NOTAM part-time status would be removed from the Class E airspace area designated as an extension to a Class D surface area.

    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be amended to within a 7-mile radius (from a 6.5-mile radius) of the airport. The New Bern VOR/DME would be removed from the description as it is no longer needed to describe the boundaries of the airport.

    For the associated Class D and E airspace areas, the geographic coordinates of the airport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database, and the airport name would be changed from Craven County Regional Airport to Coastal Carolina Regional Airport.

    Also, this action would replace the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the associated Class D and E airspace legal descriptions.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASO NC D New Bern, NC [Amended] Coastal Carolina Regional Airport, NC (Lat. 35°04′22″ N., long. 77°02′35″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Coastal Carolina Regional Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. ASO NC E2 New Bern, NC [Amended] Coastal Carolina Regional Airport, NC (Lat. 35°04′22″ N., long. 77°02′35″ W.)

    Within a 4-mile radius of Coastal Carolina Regional Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. ASO NC E4 New Bern, NC [Amended] Coastal Carolina Regional Airport, NC (Lat. 35°04′22″ N., long. 77°02′35″ W.) New Bern VOR/DME (Lat. 35°04′23″ N., long. 77°02′42″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.4 miles each side of the New Bern VOR/DME 038° and 210° radials, extending from the 4-mile radius to 7 miles northeast and southwest of the VOR/DME.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO AL E5 New Bern, NC [Amended] Coastal Carolina Regional Airport, NC (Lat. 35°04′22″ N., long. 77°02′35″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Coastal Carolina Regional Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 12, 2017. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10555 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9481; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-18] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Midland, TX and Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Odessa, TX and Midland, TX AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Midland International Air and Space Port Airport (formerly Midland International Airport), Midland, TX, due to the closing of Mabee Ranch Airport, decommissioning of the Mabee non-directional radio beacon (NDB), and cancellation of NDB approaches at Mabee Ranch Airport. Additionally, this proposal would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer Field, Odessa, TX, and Midland Airpark, Midland, TX, to accommodate special instrument approach procedures developed at these airports to enhance the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations. Also, this proposal would make an editorial change to the legal descriptions by replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement, and would change the airport name to Midland International Air and Space Port Airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-9826 or (800) 617-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9481; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-18, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operation Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: (817) 222-5857.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Midland International Air Space Port Airport by removing Mabee Ranch Airport, Midland, TX, because the airport is closed, and establish Class E airspace at Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer Field, Odessa, TX, and Midland Airpark, Midland, TX, to ensure the efficient use of airspace within the National Airspace System.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-9481/Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-18.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:

    Modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.1-mile radius (from a 17.4-mile radius) of Midland International Air and Space Port Airport, Midland, TX. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the closing of Mabee Ranch Airport, and decommissioning and cancellation of the Mabee NDB, and NDB approaches;

    Establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of both Midland Airport, Midland, TX, and Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer-Field, Odessa, TX, to accommodate special instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports;

    Updating the airport's name in the associated Class E airspace areas; and making an editorial change in the legal description by replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.

    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the forgoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. ASW TX E2 Midland International Air and Space Port Airport, TX [Amended] Midland International Air and Space Port Airport, TX (Lat. 31°56′33″ N., long. 102°12′07″ W.)

    Within a 5-mile radius of Midland International Air and Space Port Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW TX E5 Midland, TX [Amended] Midland International Air and Space Port Airport, TX (Lat. 31°56′33″ N., long. 102°12′07″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.1-mile radius of Midland International Air and Space Port Airport.

    ASW TX E5 Odessa, TX [New] Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer Field, TX (Lat. 31°55′17″ N., long. 102°23′14″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer Field Airport.

    ASW TX E5 Midland, TX [New] Midland Airpark, TX (Lat. 32°02′12″ N., long. 102°06′05″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Midland Airpark.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 17, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10740 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0279; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-10] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Johnson City, TN AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Johnson City, TN, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving Johnson City Medical Center Heliport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the heliport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg. Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826.You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2017-0279; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-10, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Johnson City Medical Center Heliport, Johnson City, TN, to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach procedures at the airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA-2017-0279 and Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-10) and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0279; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-10.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace at Johnson City, TN, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Johnson City Medical Center Heliport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the heliport would be established for IFR operations.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO KY E5 Johnson City, TN [New] Johnson City Medical Center Heliport, TN (Lat. 36°18′26″ N., long. 82°23′10″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Johnson City Medical Center Heliport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 12, 2017. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10428 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9499; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-19] Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Fort Knox, KY, and Louisville, KY AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace by removing the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status at Godman Army Airfield (AAF) Fort Knox, KY; and Bowman Field Airport, Louisville, KY. This action would also update the geographic coordinates of these airports in the associated Class D and E airspace descriptions. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg. Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or 202-366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2016-9499; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-19, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone 404 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would remove NOTAM part-time information from Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Godman Army Airfield, Fort Knox, KY, and Bowman Field Airport, Louisville, KY.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-9499; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-19.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by removing the NOTAM part-time status of the Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area at Godman Army Airfield (AAF) Fort Knox, KY; and Bowman Field Airport, Louisville, KY. Also, this action would amend Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace, and Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface would be adjusted by updating the geographic coordinates of these airports to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASO KY D Fort Knox, KY [Amended] Godman AAF, KY (Lat. 37°54′26″ N., long. 85°58′18″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,300 feet MSL within a 3.9-mile radius of Godman AAF. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement (previously called Airport/Facility Directory).

    ASO KY D Louisville Bowman Field, KY [Amended] Bowman Field Airport, KY (Lat. 38°13′41″ N., long. 85°39′49″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to but not including 2,200 feet MSL within a 3.9-mile radius of Bowman Field Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement (previously called Airport/Facility Directory).

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. ASO KY E2 Fort Knox, KY [Amended] Godman AAF, KY (Lat. 37°54′26″ N., long. 85°58′18″ W.)

    Within a 3.9-mile radius of Godman AAF. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement (previously called Airport/Facility Directory).

    ASO KY E2 Louisville Bowman Field, KY [Amended] Louisville Bowman Field, KY (Lat. 38°13′41″ N., long. 85°39′49″ W.)

    Within a 3.9-mile radius of Bowman Field Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement (previously called Airport/Facility Directory).

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. ASO KY E4 Fort Knox, KY [Amended] Godman AAF, KY (Lat. 37°54′26″ N., long. 85°58′18″ W.) Godman NDB (Lat. 37°57′31″ N., long. 85°58′36″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.4 miles each side of the 354° bearing from Godman NDB, extending from the 3.9-mile radius of Godman AAF to 7 miles north of the NDB.

    ASO KY E4 Louisville Bowman Field, KY [Amended] Louisville Bowman Field, KY (Lat. 38°13′41″ N., long. 85°39′48″ W.) Bowman VOR/DME (Lat. 38°13′49″ N., long. 85°39′53″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.4 miles each side of the Bowman VOR/DME 067° radial, extending from the 3.9-mile radius of Bowman Field to 7 miles east of the Bowman VOR/DME.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO KY E5 Fort Knox, KY [Amended] Fort Knox, Godman AAF, KY (Lat. 37°54′24′ N., long. 85°58′23″ W.) Godman NDB (Lat. 37°57′31″ N., long. 85°58′36″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Godman AAF and within 2.4 miles each side of the 354° bearing from Godman NDB, extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 7 miles north of the NDB.

    ASO KY E5 Louisville, KY [Amended] Louisville, Standiford Field Airport, KY (Lat. 38°10′29″ N., long. 85°44′11″ W.) Bowman Field Airport, KY (Lat. 38°13′41″ N., long. 85°39′49″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 10-mile radius of Standiford Field and within 2.4 miles each side of the ILS localizer east course, extending from the 10-mile radius to 7 miles east of the LOM and within a 10-mile radius of Bowman Field Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 11, 2017. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10427 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0296; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-7] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace for Oskaloosa, IA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Oskaloosa Municipal Airport, Oskaloosa, IA, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Oskaloosa non directional radio beacon (NDB), and cancellation of the NDB approach procedure, and would enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0296/Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-7, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ron Laster, Federal Aviation Administration, Contract Support, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5879.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend controlled Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Oskaloosa Municipal Airport, Oskaloosa, IA, to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach procedures at the airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0296/Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-7.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Oskaloosa Municipal Airport, Oskaloosa, IA, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport. The segment within 2.6 miles each side of the 018° bearing from the Oskaloosa NDB extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 7 miles north of the NDB would be removed due to the decommissioning of the NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach procedure.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ACE IA E5 Oskaloosa, IA [Amended] Oskaloosa Municipal Airport, IA (Lat. 41°13′34″ N., long 92°29′38″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Oskaloosa Municipal Airport, excluding that airspace within the Ottumwa, IA Class E airspace area.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 17, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10553 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2013-0442; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASO-12] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Ashburn, GA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ashburn, GA, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Turner County Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U. S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg. Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or 202-647-9826.You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2013-0442; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASO-12, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Turner County Airport, Ashburn, GA to provide the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at Turner County Airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2013-0442; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASO-12.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Turner County Airport, Ashburn, GA. This proposal would provide the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at Turner County Airport.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO GA E5 Ashburn, GA [New] Turner County Airport, GA (Lat. 31°41′15″ N., long. 83°37′59″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Turner County Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 11, 2017. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10432 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    82 101 Friday, May 26, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2017-0041] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; U.S. Origin Health Certificate AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the export of animals and animal products from the United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0041.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0041, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0041 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the export of animals and animal products from the United States, contact Dr. Kate Bowers, Senior Staff Veterinarian, NIES, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 139, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3300. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: U.S. Origin Health Certificate.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0020.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, among other things, has the authority to detect, control, or eradicate pests or diseases of livestock or poultry. The Secretary may also prohibit or restrict the import or export of any animal or related material if necessary to prevent the spread of any livestock or poultry pest or disease. Disease prevention is the most effective method for maintaining a healthy animal population and for enhancing APHIS' ability to compete in the world market of animal and animal product trade.

    The export of agricultural commodities, including animals and animal products, is a major business in the United States and contributes to a favorable balance of trade. As part of its mission to facilitate the export of U.S. animals and products, APHIS' Veterinary Services maintains information regarding the import health requirements of other countries for animals and animal products exported from the United States.

    Among other things, to ensure a favorable balance of trade, APHIS uses information collection activities, such as U.S. Origin Health Certificates; U.S. Interstate and International Certificates of Health Examinations for Small Animals; U.S. Origin Health Certificates for the Export of Horses from the United States to Canada; Health Certificates for the Export of Live Finfish, Mollusks, and Crustaceans (and their Gametes); Undue Hardship Explanations-Animals; Applications for Approval of Inspection Facility-Environmental Certification; Annual Inspections of Inspection Facilities; Opportunities to Present Views Concerning Withdrawal of Facility Approval; Certifications to Carry Livestock; Inspections of Vessel Prior to Voyage; Notarized Statements; Aircraft Cleaning and Disinfection; Country-Specific Health Care; and Travel Time.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.48 hours per response.

    Respondents: Owners and facility operators, accredited veterinarians, exporters, and owners or masters of a vessel.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 2,177.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 16.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 35,661.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 17,170 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of May 2017. Jere L. Dick, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-11077 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Proposed New Fee Sites; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed new fee sites.

    SUMMARY:

    The Wayne National Forest is proposing to charge a fee of $10.00 per site/per night at Hune Bridge, Lane Farm, Ring Mill, and Lamping Homestead Campgrounds. Fees are assessed based on the level of amenities and services provided, cost of operations and maintenance, and market assessment. The fees are proposed and will be determined upon further analysis and public comment. Funds from fees would be used for continued operations and maintenance and improvements to the campgrounds. An analysis of the nearby state and private campgrounds with similar amenities show that the proposed fees are reasonable for the area.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted through July 28, 2017. If approved, new fees would begin approximately April 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Anthony V. Scardina, Forest Supervisor, Wayne National Forest, 13700 U.S. Hwy. 33, Nelsonville, OH 45764.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chad Wilberger, Forest Recreation Program Manager, 740-753-0884. Information about the proposed fees can also be found on the Wayne National Forest Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/wayne.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are proposed. Once public involvement is complete, these new fees will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.

    The Hune Bridge, Lane Farm, Ring Mill, and Lamping Homestead Campgrounds are small campgrounds (3 to 7 campsites each) that are located along State Route 26 in Washington and Monroe Counties, Ohio. They currently offer tent-only, non-electric campsites that are open year-round.

    Revenue generated by the proposed fee increases would be used to leverage federal funding, grants, and partnership contributions to make the following investments and improvements: Rehabilitate tent pads and campsite spurs; stabilize the river bank along the campgrounds; construct canoe launches; upgrade picnic tables, grills, and fire rings; replace restroom facilities; and provide better signing.

    Dated: March 29, 2017. Glenn P. Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10953 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Columbia County Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Columbia County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Dayton, Washington. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 26, 2017, at 6:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Dayton Fire Department, 111 Patit Road, Dayton, Washington.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Walla Walla Ranger District, 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, Washington. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mike Rassbach, RAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by phone at 509-522-6293 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Conduct general business,

    2. Review past projects and progress of ongoing projects, and

    3. Review and recommend proposed projects for Title II funding.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by June 19, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Mike Rassbach, RAC DFO, Walla Walla Ranger District, 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, Washington 99362; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 509-522-6000.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation, For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: May 5, 2017. Jeanne M. Higgins, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10958 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of New Fee Sites AGENCY:

    Sheyenne National Grassland, Dakota Prairie Grasslands, USDA Forest Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice of new fee sites.

    SUMMARY:

    The Sheyenne National Grassland is proposing to charge a $10 per night fee at the newly constructed Jorgen's Hollow Campground. Funds generated at the site will be used for the operation and maintenance, upkeep of facilities, and improvements as feasible. This fee is only proposed and will be determined upon further analysis and public comment.

    DATES:

    Send any comments about these fee proposals by June 26, 2017 so comments can be compiled, analyzed, and shared with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Dakotas Resource Advisory Council (RAC). The effective date of implementation of proposed new fee will be no earlier than six months after publication of this notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents concerning this proposed fee may be reviewed at the Sheyenne Ranger District Office, 1601 Main Street, Lisbon, ND 58054. Written Comments may be delivered to the same address, or mailed to P.O. Box 946, Lisbon, ND 58504; faxed to (701) 683-6816; or emailed to [email protected] with “Jorgen's Hollow Campground Fee Proposal” referenced in the subject line.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rob Schilling, at (701) 227-7837 or mail to 99 23rd Ave. W., Suite B, Dickinson, ND 58601. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact Rob Schilling during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours. More information about this fee proposal is available on the Dakota Prairie National Grasslands' Web site at https://www.fs.usda.gov/news/dpg/news-events.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, P.L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established.

    Once public involvement is complete, the proposal will be reviewed by the BLM Dakotas Resource Advisory Council prior to a final decision and implementation.

    Jorgen's Hollow Campground is a destination campground for people visiting the Sheyenne National Grassland near Lisbon, North Dakota. The proposed fee for individual campsites are $10 per night; free dispersed camping would no longer be available at Jorgen's Hollow Campground. A market analysis of surrounding recreation sites with similar amenities indicates that the proposed fees are comparable and reasonable.

    Dated: April 12, 2017. Glenn Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10951 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Lyon-Mineral Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Lyon-Mineral Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Yerington, Nevada. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/specialprojects/racweb.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 29, 2017, at 1:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Lyon County Administration Complex, Commissioners Meeting Room, 27 South Main Street, Yerington, Nevada.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Bridgeport Ranger Station. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeremy Marshall, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 760-932-5801, or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Discuss new project proposals; and

    2. Receive an update on current and completed projects.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by June 16, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Jeremy Marshall, Designated Federal Officer, Bridgeport Ranger District, HC 62, Box 1000, Bridgeport, California 93517; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 760-932-5899.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: May 5, 2017. Jeanne M. Higgins, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10936 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) will meet in Bend, Oregon. The committee is authorized pursuant to the implementation of E-19 of the Record of Decision and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to provide advice and make recommendations to promote a better integration of forest management activities between Federal and non-Federal entities to ensure that such activities are complementary. PAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/deschutes/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 2, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 3:00 p.m.

    All PAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will begin at the Deschutes National Forest Headquarters Office, 63095 Deschutes Market Road, Bend, Oregon; and will also involve travel to the field.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Deschutes National Forest Headquarters Office. Please call ahead at to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beth Peer, Deschutes PAC Coordinator, by phone at 541-383-5554 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Learn about pilot project areas that will be used for developing broad-scale approach,

    2. Recommendations on implementing travel management, and

    3. The committee will visit a pilot project area in the field and should be prepared for the outdoors.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by May 25, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Beth Peer, Deschutes PAC Coordinator, 63095 Deschutes Market Road, Bend, Oregon, 97701; or by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 541-383-4755.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation, For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: May 8, 2017. Jeanne M. Higgins, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10954 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Proposed New Fee Site AGENCY:

    Bridger-Teton National Forest, Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed new fee site.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bridger-Teton National Forest is proposing to charge fees at two new rental cabins: Sherman Guard Station and Green River Lakes. The Green River Lakes Rental Cabin would be open year round with proposed fees of $100 during summer and $75 during winter. The Sherman Guard Station site has two cabins. The Forest is proposing an $80 fee during summer for both cabins and a $35 fee for one cabin or $60 fee for both the cabins during the winter. Reduced fees in winter would account for no running water being available at either site. Fees are assessed based on the level of amenities and services provided, cost of operations and maintenance, and market assessment. The fee is proposed and will be determined upon further analysis and public comment. Funds from fees would be used for the continued operation and maintenance and improvements of these rental cabins.

    An analysis of the nearby private rental cabins with similar amenities shows that the proposed fees are reasonable and typical of similar sites in the area.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted through September 30, 2017. New fees would begin June 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Shannon Connolly, Forest Recreation Program Manager, 340 N Cache, P.O. Box 1888, Jackson, Wyoming 83001, or email them to [email protected] with “BT Recreation Fee Proposal” as the subject line. Comments will be until taken until September, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shannon Connolly, Forest Recreation Program Manager, 307-739-5516. Information about proposed fee changes can also be found on the Bridger-Teton National Forest Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/btnf.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established. Once public involvement is complete, these new fees will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation. People wanting reserve these cabins would need to do so through the National Recreation Reservation Service, at www.recreation.gov or by calling 1-877-444-6777 when it becomes available.

    Dated: April 26, 2017. Jeanne M. Higgins, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10947 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of New Fee Site AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of new fee site.

    SUMMARY:

    The Monongahela National Forest is proposing to charge a $75 fee for the overnight rental of Hopkins Mountain Fireman's Cabin. This cabin has not been available for recreation use prior to this date. Rental of another cabin on the Monongahela National Forest has shown that people appreciate and enjoy the availability of historic rental cabins. Funds from the rental will be used for the continued operation and maintenance of Hopkins Mountain Fireman's Cabin. This fee is only proposed and a final determination will be made upon further analysis and public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposal will be accepted through July 31, 2017. Fees for the Hopkins Mountain Fireman's Cabin will go into effect spring of 2018 pending a recommendation from the Eastern Region Recreation Resource Advisory Committee.

    ADDRESSES:

    Forest Supervisor, Monongahela National Forest, 200 Sycamore Street, Elkins, WV 26241.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matthew Edwards, South Zone Recreation Manager, 304-799-4334. Information about the proposed fee can also be found on the Monongahela National Forest Web site at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/mnf.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established. Prior to these fees going into effect, the Monongahela National Forest will present this proposal to the Eastern Region Recreation Resource Advisory Committee. The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act requires a recommendation from the Eastern Region Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a decision and implementation.

    This cabin sleeps four and includes one set of bunk beds, a fold-out bed, tables, chairs, electric lights, and heat. A campsite, for up to eight people, with a picnic table and campfire ring, is also included with the cabin rental.

    The Monongahela National Forest currently has one other cabin, often fully booked throughout the rental season, available for rent. A business analysis of Hopkins Mountain Fireman's Cabin has shown that people desire having this sort of recreation experience on the Monongahela National Forest. A market analysis indicates that the $75 per night fee is both reasonable and acceptable for this sort of unique recreation experience.

    People wanting to rent Hopkins Mountain Fireman's Cabin will need to do so through the National Recreation Reservation Service, at www.recreation.gov or by calling 1-877-444-6777. The National Recreation Reservation Service charges a $9 fee for online reservations and a $10 fee for telephone reservations.

    Dated: April 12, 2017. Glenn P. Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10941 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (Board) will meet in Rapid City, South Dakota. The Board is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the Federal Public Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. Additional information concerning the Board, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Board's Web site at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/blackhills/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 21, 2017, at 1:00 p.m.

    All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Forest Service Center, 8221 Mount Rushmore Road, Rapid City, South Dakota.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Jacobson, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 605-440-1409 or by email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to provide:

    (1) Information Topic: Mining Claims on the Forest;

    (2) Black Hills Resilient Landscape Project update;

    (3) District Updates;

    (4) Non-motorized Trails—Working Group update;

    (5) Black Backed Woodpecker update;

    (6) Northern Long Eared Bat update;

    (7) Black Hills Horse Sanctuary Trespass Update; and

    (8) August Field Trip.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by June 12, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Board may file written statements with the Board's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Scott Jacobson, Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 North Fifth Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 605-673-9208.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: May 5, 2017. Jeanne M. Higgins, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10959 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Institute of Food and Agriculture Solicitation of Commodity Board Topics and Contribution of Funding Under the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program AGENCY:

    National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of opportunity for commodity boards to submit topics and contribute funding under the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Food and Agriculture is soliciting topics from eligible commodity board entities (Federal and State-level commodity boards, as defined below), which they are willing to equally co-fund with NIFA. To be considered for inclusion in future Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (AFRI) Requests for Applications (RFAs), topics must relate to the established priority areas of AFRI.

    DATES:

    Commodity boards may submit topics at any time; however, all topics to be considered for the fiscal year 2018 AFRI RFAs must be received by 5:00 p.m., EDT on July 25, 2017. Topics submitted by eligible commodity board entities after this date will be considered for RFAs to be issued in future years. NIFA will hold a webinar and workshop to respond to questions from commodity boards interested in submitting topics. Details including the date and time, and access information will be posted on the NIFA Web site (http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards/).

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit topics by the following method: Web site: https://nifa.usda.gov/webform/commodity-board-topic-submission/.

    Instructions: The topic submission must be through the Web site form; emailed topics will not be accepted. Required fields are marked. Topics submitted through this form will not be posted to a public site.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Mirando; Phone: (202) 401-4336, or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) strategy to implement section 7404 of Public Law 113-79, the Agricultural Act of 2014, NIFA is soliciting topics from eligible commodity board entities (Federal and State-level commodity boards, as defined below), which they are willing to equally co-fund with NIFA. To be considered for inclusion in future Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (AFRI) Requests for Applications (RFAs), topics must relate to the established priority areas of AFRI.

    Commodity boards are those entities established under a commodity promotion law, as such term is defined under section 501(a) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7401(a), or a State commodity board or other equivalent State entity. See the “Supplementary Information” section of this Notice under the heading “Eligibility for Submitting Topics” for further information.

    If, after NIFA's evaluation, proposed topics are accepted for inclusion in an AFRI RFA, they will be incorporated into AFRI competitive grants program RFAs. As a condition of funding grants pertaining to a topic, NIFA will require an agreement with the commodity board to provide funds equal to the amount NIFA is contributing under the agreed upon topic.

    This Notice invites topic submissions from commodity boards as defined above, outlines the process NIFA will use to evaluate the appropriateness of these topics for inclusion in AFRI RFAs, and describes the commitment required of commodity boards for NIFA to jointly fund competitively selected AFRI awards within a topic area submitted by the commodity boards.

    Background and Purpose

    This Notice begins the third topic submission cycle to implement section 2(b)(4)(F) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)(4)(F)), as added by section 7404 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79, which requires NIFA to “establish procedures, including timelines, under which an entity established under a commodity promotion law, as such term is defined under section 501(a) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7401(a), or a State commodity board (or other equivalent State entity) may directly submit to [NIFA] for consideration proposals for requests for applications” within the AFRI Program.

    Stakeholder feedback gathered in previous years informed this Notice and the process NIFA is using to implement section 7404. This Notice invites entities established under a commodity promotion law or State commodity boards (or other equivalent State entities) to submit topics they are proposing for inclusion in fiscal year 2018 AFRI RFAs. Topics must relate to the established AFRI priority areas, which are: Plant health and production and plant products; animal health and production and animal products; food safety, nutrition, and health; bioenergy, natural resources, and environment; agriculture systems and technology; and agriculture economics and rural communities. A summary statement on AFRI is included below. To learn more about AFRI programs, including program priorities, typical award budget amounts, and examples of RFAs, please visit: http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards/.

    AFRI Program Overview

    The AFRI program is the largest agricultural competitive grants program in the United States and a primary funding source for research, education, and extension projects that bring practical solutions to some of today's most critical societal challenges. AFRI programs impact all components of agriculture, including farm and ranch efficiency and profitability, bioenergy, forestry, aquaculture, rural communities, human nutrition, food safety, biotechnology, and genetic improvement of plants and animals.

    In FY 2018, NIFA will solicit applications for AFRI funding opportunities in the six AFRI priority areas (Plant health and production and plant products; Animal health and production and animal products; Food safety, nutrition, and health; Bioenergy, natural resources, and environment; Agriculture systems and technology; Agriculture economics and rural communities). It is anticipated these will include the AFRI Foundational Science Program RFA and the AFRI Education and Workforce Development RFA. The annual AFRI Foundational Science Program RFA solicits grant applications focused predominately, but not exclusively, on fundamental scientific research addressing statutory priorities. The AFRI Education and Workforce Development RFA solicits grant applications for training K-14 teachers and administrators, undergraduate research and extension experiential learning fellowships, and pre- and post-doctoral fellowships. Any additional AFRI RFAs made available in FY 2018 will be included in this solicitation.

    Eligibility for Submitting Topics

    Eligible commodity board entities are those established under a commodity promotion law, as such term is defined under section 501(a) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7401(a)), or a State commodity board (or other equivalent State entity). Language in 7 U.S.C. 7401(a) defines a “commodity promotion law” as “a Federal law that provides for the establishment and operation of a promotion program regarding an agricultural commodity that includes a combination of promotion, research, industry information, or consumer information activities, is funded by mandatory assessments on producers or processors, and is designed to maintain or expand markets and uses for the commodity (as determined by the Secretary).” 7 U.S.C. Section 7401(a) includes a list of such Federal laws.

    A current list of approved entities is maintained at (http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards/). Additionally, entities eligible to submit topics include a State commodity board (or other equivalent State entity). This includes commodity boards authorized by State law; commodity boards that are not authorized by State law, but are organized and operate within a State and meet the requirements of their authorizing statute; and commodity boards that are authorized by a State and operate within the State for commodities that have no Federal program or oversight.

    Topic Submission Guidance and Procedures

    Topics may be submitted at any time and will be evaluated by NIFA on an annual basis. However, to be considered for the proposed fiscal year 2018 AFRI RFAs, topics must be received by COB (5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time) on July 25, 2017.

    Each topic proposed must be submitted using the online topic submission form provided at: https://nifa.usda.gov/webform/commodity-board-topic-submission/. Commodity boards may propose support for multiple awards for each topic proposed. For each topic the commodity board proposes to support, the minimum amount contributed by the commodity board must align with budget guidance for each AFRI area (http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards/) and comply with the maximum amount of $2.5 million allowed per topic. NIFA does not intend to match funding from a single commodity board in excess of $10 million in any year. Commodity boards should only submit topics that have a strong economic impact on their industry and U.S. agriculture, as a whole. Examples of topics typically supported by AFRI can be found at http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards/.

    If topics are accepted for funding, they will be incorporated into AFRI RFAs, and grants supporting the topic area may be awarded to AFRI eligible entities based on a competitive peer review process. As a condition of funding grants in a topic, NIFA will require an agreement by the commodity board to provide funds in an amount equal to the amount NIFA is contributing under the agreed upon topic. If a topic is selected for inclusion in an RFA, the commodity board submitting the topic will be required to maintain the confidentiality of the topic until the RFA is issued by NIFA. All commodity board funds and NIFA funds must be available at the time awards are selected for funding; awards are fully funded at the beginning of the award. Applications submitted under topics provided by commodity boards will be required to include a letter of support from the commodity board that proposed the topic.

    Evaluation and Notification Process

    NIFA will screen proposed research topics to ensure eligibility of the submitting commodity boards. NIFA will also consult with USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to determine that submissions and proposed financial contributions are consistent with commodity promotion laws and commodity boards' charters, as applicable.

    Commodity board topics are reviewed by an internal panel based on evaluation criteria developed using stakeholder input from commodity boards and other stakeholders from government, industry, and academe. Each topic will be evaluated based on: Alignment with one or more of the statutory AFRI priority areas (six AFRI priority areas authorized in the Farm Bill and described in 7 CFR 3430.309); alignment with the President's budget proposal for NIFA, as identified in the Department of Agriculture's annual budget submission; and alignment with the priority areas in the AFRI RFAs to be released by NIFA during the fiscal year for which the commodity board is proposing a topic for funding (for example, within the AFRI Foundational Science RFA, the AFRI Animal Health and Production and Animal Products' “Animal Reproduction” priority area).

    From those topics received by COB (5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time) on July 25, 2017, NIFA will select the topic(s) that were evaluated favorably for inclusion in the appropriate FY 2018 AFRI RFA. NIFA will notify commodity boards as to whether their topics will be included by August 24, 2017. Based on the evaluation, NIFA reserves the right to negotiate with commodity boards should changes be required to accept topics and funding amounts. Any changes to topics and funding amounts will be reviewed by USDA's AMS to determine if such changes are consistent with applicable commodity promotion laws.

    NIFA will evaluate topics submitted after the July 25, 2017 deadline on an annual basis and notify commodity boards whether their topics will be included in subsequent RFAs within two weeks following the meeting of the internal evaluation panel, the date of which will be published on NIFA's Commodity Boards Web page at (http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards/).

    Done at Washington, DC, this 19th day of May, 2017. Robert Holland, Associate Director, National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10782 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA) for the Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI) for Fiscal Year 2017 AGENCY:

    Rural Housing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Rural Housing Service (RHS), an agency within the USDA Rural Development (RD) mission area herein referred to as the Agency announces the acceptance of applications under the Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI) program. Applicants must provide matching funds in an amount at least equal to the Federal grant. These grants will be made to qualified intermediary organizations that will provide financial and technical assistance to recipients to develop their capacity and ability to undertake projects related to housing, community facilities, or community and economic development that will support the community.

    This Notice lists the information needed to submit an application for these funds. This Notice announces that the Rural Housing Service (Agency) is accepting fiscal year (FY) 2017 applications for the RCDI program. The Agency will publish the program funding level on the Rural Development Web site https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-community-development-initiative-grants. This Notice contains revised evaluation criteria that are streamlined, in order to enhance program efficiency and delivery.

    DATES:

    The deadline for receipt of an application is 4 p.m. local time, July 25, 2017. The application date and time are firm. The Agency will not consider any application received after the deadline. Applicants intending to mail applications must provide sufficient time to permit delivery on or before the closing deadline date and time. Acceptance by the United States Postal Service or private mailer does not constitute delivery. Facsimile (FAX), electronic mail, and postage due applications will not be accepted.

    ADDRESSES:

    Entities wishing to apply for assistance may download the application documents and requirements delineated in this Notice from the RCDI Web site: http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-community-development-initiative-grants.

    Application information for electronic submissions may be found at http://www.grants.gov.

    Applicants may also request paper application packages from the Rural Development office in their state. A list of Rural Development State offices contacts can be found via https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/CF_State_Office_Contacts.pdf.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Rural Development office for the state in which the applicant is located. A list of Rural Development State Office contacts is provided at the following link: https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/CF_State_Office_Contacts.pdf.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The paperwork burden has been cleared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0575-0180.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Overview

    Federal Agency: Rural Housing Service.

    Funding Opportunity Title: Rural Community Development Initiative.

    Announcement Type: Initial Announcement.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 10.446.

    Dates: The deadline for receipt of an application is 4 p.m. local time, July 25, 2017. The application date and time are firm. The Agency will not consider any application received after the deadline. Applicants intending to mail applications must provide sufficient time to permit delivery on or before the closing deadline date and time. Acceptance by the United States Postal Service or private mailer does not constitute delivery. Facsimile (FAX), electronic mail and postage due applications will not be accepted.

    A. Program Description

    Congress first authorized the RCDI in 1999 (Pub. L. 106-78, which was amended most recently by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113) to develop the capacity and ability of private, nonprofit community-based housing and community development organizations, low-income rural communities, and federally recognized Native American Tribes to undertake projects related to housing, community facilities, or community and economic development in rural areas. Strengthening the recipient's capacity in these areas will benefit the communities they serve. The RCDI structure requires the intermediary (grantee) to provide a program of financial and technical assistance to recipients. The recipients will, in turn, provide programs to their communities (beneficiaries).

    B. Federal Award Information

    This Notice is being published prior to the Congressional enactment of a full-year appropriation for fiscal year 2017. The Agency will continue to process applications received under this announcement and should RCDI receive appropriated funds, these funds will be announced on the following Web site: http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-community-development-initiative-grants. Enactment of additional continuing resolutions or an appropriations act may affect the availability or level of funding for this program.

    Qualified private, nonprofit and public (including tribal) intermediary organizations proposing to carry out financial and technical assistance programs will be eligible to receive the grant funding.

    The intermediary will be required to provide matching funds in an amount at least equal to the RCDI grant.

    A grant will be the type of assistance instrument awarded to successful applications.

    The respective minimum and maximum grant amount per intermediary is $50,000 and $250,000.

    Grant funds must be utilized within 3 years from date of the award.

    A grantee that has an outstanding RCDI grant over 3 years old, as of the application due date in this Notice, is not eligible to apply for this round of funding.

    The intermediary must provide a program of financial and technical assistance to one or more of the following: A private, nonprofit community-based housing and development organization, a low-income rural community or a federally recognized tribe.

    (a) Sections 743, 744, 745, and 746 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113) apply. Any corporation (i) that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or (ii) that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance provided with funds, unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government. In addition, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be available for a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with an entity that requires employees or contractors of such entity seeking to report fraud, waste, or abuse to sign internal confidentiality agreements or statements prohibiting or otherwise restricting such employees or contractors from lawfully reporting such waste, fraud, or abuse to a designated investigative or law enforcement representative of a Federal department or agency authorized to receive such information. Additionally, no funds appropriated in this or any other Act may be used to implement or enforce the agreements in Standard Forms 312 and 4414 of the Government or any other nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement if such policy, form, or agreement does not contain the following provisions: “These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or Executive order relating to (1) classified information, (2) communications to Congress, (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other whistleblower protection.

    (b) A nondisclosure agreement may continue to be implemented and enforced notwithstanding subsection (a) if it complies with the requirements for such agreement that were in effect when the agreement was entered into.

    (c) No funds appropriated in this or any other Act may be used to implement or enforce any agreement entered into during fiscal year 2014 which does not contain substantially similar language to that required in subsection (a).”

    C. Eligibility Information

    Applicants must meet all of the following eligibility requirements by the application deadline. Applications which fail to meet any of these requirements by the application deadline will be deemed ineligible and will not be evaluated further, and will not receive a Federal award.

    1. Eligible Applicants

    (a) Qualified private, nonprofit, (including faith-based and community organizations and philanthropic foundations), in accordance with 7 CFR part 16, and public (including tribal) intermediary organizations are eligible applicants. Definitions that describe eligible organizations and other key terms are listed below.

    (b) The recipient must be a nonprofit community-based housing and development organization, low-income rural community, or federally recognized tribe based on the RCDI definitions of these groups.

    (c) Private nonprofit, faith or community-based organizations must provide a certificate of incorporation and good standing from the Secretary of the State of incorporation, or other similar and valid documentation of current nonprofit status. For low-income rural community recipients, the Agency requires evidence that the entity is a public body and census data verifying that the median household income of the community where the office receiving the financial and technical assistance is located is at, or below, 80 percent of the State or national median household income, whichever is higher. For federally recognized tribes, the Agency needs the page listing their name from the current Federal Register list of tribal entities recognized and eligible for funding services (see the definition of federally recognized tribes in this Notice for details on this list).

    (d) Any corporation (1) that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or (2) that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability; is not eligible for financial assistance provided with full-year appropriated funds for Fiscal Year 2017, unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    There is a matching requirement of at least equal to the amount of the grant. If this matching funds requirement is not met, the application will be deemed ineligible. See section D, Application and Submission Information, for required pre-award and post award matching funds documentation submission.

    The intermediary must provide matching funds at least equal to the amount of the grant. Verification of matching funds must be submitted with the application. Matching funds must be committed for a period equal to the grant performance period. The intermediary will be required to provide matching funds in an amount at least equal to the RCDI grant. In-kind contributions such as salaries, donated time and effort, real and nonexpendable personal property and goods and services cannot be used as matching funds.

    Matching funds are cash or confirmed funding commitments and must be at least equal to the grant amount and committed for a period of not less than the grant performance period. These funds can only be used for eligible RCDI activities. Matching funds must be used to support the overall purpose of the RCDI program.

    In-kind contributions such as salaries, donated time and effort, real and nonexpendable personal property and goods and services cannot be used as matching funds.

    Grant funds and matching funds must be used in equal proportions. This does not mean funds have to be used equally by line item.

    The request for advance or reimbursement and supporting documentation must show that RCDI fund usage does not exceed the cumulative amount of matching funds used.

    Grant funds will be disbursed pursuant to relevant provisions of 2 CFR parts 200 and 400. Verification of matching funds must be submitted with the application. See Section D, other program requirements, for matching funds documentation and pre-award requirements.

    The intermediary is responsible for demonstrating that matching funds are available, and committed for a period of not less than the grant performance period to the RCDI proposal. Matching funds may be provided by the intermediary or a third party. Other Federal funds may be used as matching funds if authorized by statute and the purpose of the funds is an eligible RCDI purpose.

    RCDI funds will be disbursed on an advance or reimbursement basis. Matching funds cannot be expended prior to execution of the RCDI Grant Agreement.

    3. Other Program Requirements

    (a) The recipient and beneficiary, but not the intermediary, must be located in an eligible rural area. The physical location of the recipient's office that will be receiving the financial and technical assistance must be in an eligible rural area. If the recipient is a low-income community, the median household income of the area where the office is located must be at or below 80 percent of the State or national median household income, whichever is higher. The applicable Rural Development State Office can assist in determining the eligibility of an area.

    A listing of Rural Development State Office contacts can be found at the following link: https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/CF_State_Office_Contacts.pdf. A map showing eligible rural areas can be found at the following link: http://eligibility.sc.egov.usda.gov/eligibility/welcomeAction.do?pageAction=RBSmenu&[email protected]

    (b) RCDI grantees that have an outstanding grant over 3 years old, as of the application due date in this Notice, will not be eligible to apply for this round of funding. Grant and matching funds must be utilized in a timely manner to ensure that the goals and objectives of the program are met.

    (c) Individuals cannot be recipients.

    (d) The intermediary must provide a program of financial and technical assistance to the recipient.

    (e) The intermediary organization must have been legally organized for a minimum of 3 years and have at least 3 years prior experience working with private nonprofit community-based housing and development organizations, low-income rural communities, or tribal organizations in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development.

    (f) Proposals must be structured to utilize the grant funds within 3 years from the date of the award.

    (g) Each applicant, whether singularly or jointly, may only submit one application for RCDI funds under this Notice. This restriction does not preclude the applicant from providing matching funds for other applications.

    (h) Recipients can benefit from more than one RCDI application; however, after grant selections are made, the recipient can only benefit from multiple RCDI grants if the type of financial and technical assistance the recipient will receive is not duplicative. The services described in multiple RCDI grant applications must have separate and identifiable accounts for compliance purposes.

    (i) The intermediary and the recipient cannot be the same entity. The recipient can be a related entity to the intermediary, if it meets the definition of a recipient, provided the relationship does not create a Conflict of Interest that cannot be resolved to Rural Development's satisfaction.

    (j) If the recipient is a low-income rural community, identify the unit of government to which the financial and technical assistance will be provided, e.g., town council or village board. The financial and technical assistance must be provided to the organized unit of government representing that community, not the community at large.

    4. Eligible Grant Purposes

    Fund uses must be consistent with the RCDI purpose. A nonexclusive list of eligible grant uses includes the following:

    (a) Provide technical assistance to develop recipients' capacity and ability to undertake projects related to housing, community facilities, or community and economic development, e.g., the intermediary hires a staff person to provide technical assistance to the recipient or the recipient hires a staff person, under the supervision of the intermediary, to carry out the technical assistance provided by the intermediary.

    (b) Develop the capacity of recipients to conduct community development programs, e.g., homeownership education or training for business entrepreneurs.

    (c) Develop the capacity of recipients to conduct development initiatives, e.g., programs that support micro-enterprise and sustainable development.

    (d) Develop the capacity of recipients to increase their leveraging ability and access to alternative funding sources by providing training and staffing.

    (e) Develop the capacity of recipients to provide the technical assistance component for essential community facilities projects.

    (f) Assist recipients in completing pre-development requirements for housing, community facilities, or community and economic development projects by providing resources for professional services, e.g., architectural, engineering, or legal.

    (g) Improve recipient's organizational capacity by providing training and resource material on developing strategic plans, board operations, management, financial systems, and information technology.

    (h) Purchase of computers, software, and printers, limited to $10,000 per award, at the recipient level when directly related to the technical assistance program being undertaken by the intermediary.

    (i) Provide funds to recipients for training-related travel costs and training expenses related to RCDI.

    5. Ineligible Fund Uses

    The following is a list of ineligible grant uses:

    (a) Pass-through grants, and any funds provided to the recipient in a lump sum that are not reimbursements.

    (b) Funding a revolving loan fund (RLF).

    (c) Construction (in any form).

    (d) Salaries for positions involved in construction, renovations, rehabilitation, and any oversight of these types of activities.

    (e) Intermediary preparation of strategic plans for recipients.

    (f) Funding prostitution, gambling, or any illegal activities.

    (g) Grants to individuals.

    (h) Funding a grant where there may be a conflict of interest, or an appearance of a conflict of interest, involving any action by the Agency.

    (i) Paying obligations incurred before the beginning date without prior Agency approval or after the ending date of the grant agreement.

    (j) Purchasing real estate.

    (k) Improvement or renovation of the grantee's or recipient's office space or for the repair or maintenance of privately owned vehicles.

    (l) Any purpose prohibited in 2 CFR part 200 or 400.

    (m) Using funds for recipient's general operating costs.

    (n) Using grant or matching funds for Individual Development Accounts.

    (o) Purchasing vehicles.

    6. Program Examples and Restrictions

    The following are examples of eligible and ineligible purposes under the RCDI program. (These examples are illustrative and are not meant to limit the activities proposed in the application. Activities that meet the objectives of the RCDI program and meet the criteria outlined in this Notice will be considered eligible.)

    (a) The intermediary must work directly with the recipient, not the ultimate beneficiaries. As an example:

    The intermediary provides training to the recipient on how to conduct homeownership education classes. The recipient then provides ongoing homeownership education to the residents of the community—the ultimate beneficiaries. This “train the trainer” concept fully meets the intent of this initiative. The intermediary is providing technical assistance that will build the recipient's capacity by enabling them to conduct homeownership education classes for the public.

    This is an eligible purpose. However, if the intermediary directly provided homeownership education classes to individuals in the recipient's service area, this would not be an eligible purpose because the recipient would be bypassed.

    (b) If the intermediary is working with a low-income community as the recipient, the intermediary must provide the technical assistance to the entity that represents the low-income community and is identified in the application. Examples of entities representing a low-income community are a village board or a town council.

    If the intermediary provides technical assistance to the Board of the low-income community on how to establish a cooperative, this would be an eligible purpose. However, if the intermediary works directly with individuals from the community to establish the cooperative, this is not an eligible purpose.

    The recipient's capacity is built by learning skills that will enable them to support sustainable economic development in their communities on an ongoing basis.

    (c) The intermediary may provide technical assistance to the recipient on how to create and operate a revolving loan fund. The intermediary may not monitor or operate the revolving loan fund. RCDI funds, including matching funds, cannot be used to fund revolving loan funds.

    (d) The intermediary may work with recipients in building their capacity to provide planning and leadership development training. The recipients of this training would be expected to assume leadership roles in the development and execution of regional strategic plans. The intermediary would work with multiple recipients in helping communities recognize their connections to the greater regional and national economies.

    (e) The intermediary could provide training and technical assistance to the recipients on developing emergency shelter and feeding, short-term housing, search and rescue, and environmental accident, prevention, and cleanup program plans. For longer term disaster and economic crisis responses, the intermediary could work with the recipients to develop job placement and training programs, and develop coordinated transit systems for displaced workers.

    D. Application and Submission Information 1. Address To Request Application Package

    Entities wishing to apply for assistance may download the application documents and requirements delineated in this Notice from the RCDI Web site: http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-community-development-initiative-grants.

    Application information for electronic submissions may be found at http://www.grants.gov.

    Applicants may also request paper application packages from the Rural Development office in their state. A list of Rural Development State office contacts can be found via https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/CF_State_Office_Contacts.pdf. You may also obtain a copy by calling 202-205-9685.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission

    If the applicant is ineligible or the application is incomplete, the Agency will inform the applicant in writing of the decision, reasons therefore, and its appeal rights and no further evaluation of the application will occur.

    A complete application for RCDI funds must include the following:

    (a) A summary page, double-spaced between items, listing the following: (This information should not be presented in narrative form.)

    (1) Applicant's name,

    (2) Applicant's address,

    (3) Applicant's telephone number,

    (4) Name of applicant's contact person, email address and telephone number,

    (5) Applicant's fax number,

    (6) County where applicant is located,

    (7) Congressional district number where applicant is located,

    (8) Amount of grant request, and

    (9) Number of recipients.

    (b) A detailed Table of Contents containing page numbers for each component of the application.

    (c) A project overview, no longer than one page, including the following items, which will also be addressed separately and in detail under “Building Capacity and Expertise” of the “Evaluation Criteria.”

    (1) The type of technical assistance to be provided to the recipients and how it will be implemented.

    (2) How the capacity and ability of the recipients will be improved.

    (3) The overall goals to be accomplished.

    (4) The benchmarks to be used to measure the success of the program. Benchmarks should be specific and quantifiable.

    (d) Organizational documents, such as a certificate of incorporation and a current good standing certification from the Secretary of State where the applicant is incorporated and other similar and valid documentation of current non-profit status, from the intermediary that confirms it has been legally organized for a minimum of 3 years as the applicant entity.

    (e) Verification of source and amount of matching funds, e.g., a copy of a bank statement if matching funds are in cash or a copy of the confirmed funding commitment from the funding source.

    The verification must show that matching funds are available for the duration of the grant performance period. The verification of matching funds must be submitted with the application or the application will be considered incomplete.

    The applicant will be contacted by the Agency prior to grant award to verify that the matching funds provided with the application continue to be available. The applicant will have 15 days from the date contacted to submit verification that matching funds continue to be available.

    If the applicant is unable to provide the verification within that timeframe, the application will be considered ineligible. The applicant must maintain bank statements on file or other documentation for a period of at least 3 years after grant closing except that the records shall be retained beyond the 3-year period if audit findings have not been resolved.

    (f) The following information for each recipient:

    (1) Recipient's entity name,

    (2) Complete address (mailing and physical location, if different),

    (3) County where located,

    (4) Number of Congressional district where recipient is located,

    (5) Contact person's name, email address and telephone number and,

    (6) Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.” If the Form RD 400-4 is not submitted for the applicant and each recipient, the recipient will be considered ineligible. No information pertaining to that recipient will be included in the income or population scoring criteria and the requested funding may be adjusted due to the deletion of the recipient.

    (g) Submit evidence that each recipient entity is eligible. Documentation must be submitted to verify recipient eligibility. Acceptable documentation varies depending on the type of recipient:

    (1) Nonprofits—provide a current valid letter confirming non-profit status from the Secretary of the State of incorporation, a current good standing certification from the Secretary of the State of incorporation, or other valid documentation of current nonprofit status of each recipient.

    A nonprofit recipient must provide evidence that it is a valid nonprofit when the intermediary applies for the RCDI grant. Organizations with pending requests for nonprofit designations are not eligible.

    (2) Low-income rural community—provide evidence the entity is a public body (copy of Charter, relevant Acts of Assembly, relevant court orders (if created judicially) or other valid documentation), a copy of the 2010 census data to verify the population, and 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates (2006-2010 data set) data as evidence that the median household income is at, or below, 80 percent of either the State or national median household income. We will only accept data and printouts from http://www.census.gov.

    (3) Federally recognized tribes—provide the page listing their name from the Federal Register list of tribal entities published most recently by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The 2016 list is available at 81 FR 19 5019-5025 and https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-01-29/pdf/2016-01769.pdf.

    (h) Each of the “Evaluation Criteria” must be addressed specifically and individually by category. Present these criteria in narrative form. Narrative (not including attachments) must be limited to five pages per criterion. The “Population and Income” criteria for recipient locations can be provided in the form of a list; however, the source of the data must be included on the page(s).

    (i) A timeline identifying specific activities and proposed dates for completion.

    (j) A detailed project budget that includes the RCDI grant amount and matching funds. This should be a line-item budget, by category. Categories such as salaries, administrative, other, and indirect costs that pertain to the proposed project must be clearly defined. Supporting documentation listing the components of these categories must be included. The budget should be dated: Year 1, year 2, and year 3, as applicable.

    (k) The indirect cost category in the project budget should be used only when a grant applicant has a federally negotiated indirect cost rate. A copy of the current rate agreement must be provided with the application. Non-federal entities that have never received a negotiated indirect cost rate, except for those non-Federal entities described in Appendix VII to Part 200-States and Local Government and Indian Tribe Indirect Cost Proposals, paragraph (d)(1)(B), may use the de minimis rate of 10% of modified total direct costs (MTDC).

    (l) Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance.”

    (Do not complete Form SF-424A, “Budget Information.” A separate line-item budget should be presented as described in Letter (j) of this section.)

    (m) Form SF-424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.”

    (n) Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.”

    (o) Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”

    (p) Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements.”

    (q) Certification of Non-Lobbying Activities.

    (r) Standard Form LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.

    (s) Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement,” for the applicant and each recipient.

    (t) Identify and report any association or relationship with Rural Development employees. (A statement acknowledging whether or not a relationship exists is required.)

    (u) Form AD-3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation. A corporation is any entity that has filed articles of incorporation in one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the various territories of the United States including American Samoa, Guam, Midway Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. Corporations include both for profit and non-profit entities.

    3. Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) and System for Awards Management (SAM)

    Grant applicants must obtain a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and register in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting an application pursuant to 2 CFR 25.200(b). In addition, an entity applicant must maintain registration in SAM at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by the Agency. Similarly, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation in accordance to 2 CFR part 170. So long as an entity applicant does not have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b), the applicant must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements should the applicant receive funding. See 2 CFR 170.200(b).

    An applicant, unless excepted under 2 CFR 25.110(b), (c), or (d), is required to:

    (a) Be registered in SAM before submitting its application;

    (b) Provide a valid DUNS number in its application; and

    (c) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.

    The Federal awarding agency may not make a federal award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Federal awarding agency is ready to make a Federal award, the Federal awarding agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.

    As required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), all grant applications must provide a DUNS number when applying for Federal grants, on or after October 1, 2003. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free number at 1-866-705-5711 or via Internet at http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. Additional information concerning this requirement can be obtained on the Grants.gov Web site at http://www.grants.gov. Similarly, applicants may register for SAM at https://www.sam.gov or by calling 1-866-606-8220.

    The applicant must provide documentation that they are registered in SAM and their DUNS number. If the applicant does not provide documentation that they are registered in SAM and their DUNS number, the application will not be considered for funding. The required forms and certifications can be downloaded from the RCDI Web site at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-community-development-initiative-grants.

    4. Submission Dates and Times

    The deadline for receipt of an application is 4 p.m. local time, July 25, 2017. The application date and time are firm. The Agency will not consider any application received after the deadline. You may submit your application in paper form or electronically through Grants.gov. Applicants intending to mail applications must provide sufficient time to permit delivery on or before the closing deadline date and time. Acceptance by the United States Postal Service or private mailer does not constitute delivery. Facsimile (FAX), electronic mail and postage due applications will not be accepted.

    To submit a paper application, the original application package must be submitted to the Rural Development State Office where the applicant's headquarters is located.

    A listing of Rural Development State Offices contacts can be found via https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/CF_State_Office_Contacts.pdf.

    Applications will not be accepted via FAX or electronic mail.

    Applicants may file an electronic application at http://www.grants.gov. Grants.gov contains full instructions on all required passwords, credentialing, and software. Follow the instructions at Grants.gov for registering and submitting an electronic application. If a system problem or technical difficulty occurs with an electronic application, please use the customer support resources available at the Grants.gov Web site.

    Technical difficulties submitting an application through Grants.gov will not be a reason to extend the application deadline. If an application is unable to be submitted through Grants.gov, a paper application must be received in the appropriate Rural Development State Office by the deadline noted previously.

    First time Grants.gov users should carefully read and follow the registration steps listed on the Web site. These steps need to be initiated early in the application process to avoid delays in submitting your application online.

    In order to register with System for Award Management (SAM), your organization will need a DUNS number. Be sure to complete the Marketing Partner ID (MPID) and Electronic Business Primary Point of Contact fields during the SAM registration process.

    These are mandatory fields that are required when submitting grant applications through Grants.gov. Additional application instructions for submitting an electronic application can be found by selecting this funding opportunity on Grants.gov.

    5. Funding Restrictions

    Meeting expenses. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 1345, “Expenses of Meetings,” appropriations may not be used for travel, transportation, and subsistence expenses for a meeting. RCDI grant funds cannot be used for these meeting-related expenses. Matching funds may, however, be used to pay for these expenses.

    RCDI funds may be used to pay for a speaker as part of a program, equipment to facilitate the program, and the actual room that will house the meeting.

    RCDI funds cannot be used for meetings; they can, however, be used for travel, transportation, or subsistence expenses for program-related training and technical assistance purposes. Any training not delineated in the application must be approved by the Agency to verify compliance with 31 U.S.C. 1345. Travel and per diem expenses (including meals and incidental expenses) will be allowed in accordance with 2 CFR parts 200 and 400.

    E. Application Review Information 1. Evaluation Criteria

    Applications will be evaluated using the following criteria and weights:

    (a) Building Capacity and Expertise—Maximum 40 Points

    The applicant must demonstrate how they will improve the recipients' capacity, through a program of financial and technical assistance, as it relates to the RCDI purposes.

    Capacity-building financial and technical assistance should provide new functions to the recipients or expand existing functions that will enable the recipients to undertake projects in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development that will benefit the community. Capacity-building financial and technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: Training to conduct community development programs, e.g., homeownership education, or the establishment of minority business entrepreneurs, cooperatives, or micro-enterprises; organizational development, e.g., assistance to develop or improve board operations, management, and financial systems; instruction on how to develop and implement a strategic plan; instruction on how to access alternative funding sources to increase leveraging opportunities; staffing, e.g., hiring a person at intermediary or recipient level to provide technical assistance to recipients.

    The program of financial and technical assistance that is to be provided, its delivery, and the measurability of the program's effectiveness will determine the merit of the application.

    All applications will be competitively ranked with the applications providing the most improvement in capacity development and measurable activities being ranked the highest.

    The narrative response must contain the following items. This list also contains the points for each item.

    (1) Describe the nature of financial and technical assistance to be provided to the recipients and the activities that will be conducted to deliver the technical assistance; (10 Points)

    (2) Explain how financial and technical assistance will develop or increase the recipient's capacity. Indicate whether a new function is being developed or if existing functions are being expanded or performed more effectively; (7 Points)

    (3) Identify which RCDI purpose areas will be addressed with this assistance: housing, community facilities, or community and economic development; (3 Points)

    (4) Describe how the results of the technical assistance will be measured. What benchmarks will be used to measure effectiveness? Benchmarks should be specific and quantifiable; (5 Points)

    (5) Demonstrate that it has conducted programs of financial and technical assistance and achieved measurable results in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development in rural areas. (10 Points)

    (6) Provide in a chart or excel spreadsheet, the organization name, point of contact, address, phone number, email address, and the type and amount of the financial and technical assistance the applicant organization has provided to the following for the last 3 years: (5 Points)

    (i) Nonprofit organizations in rural areas.

    (ii) Low-income communities in rural areas (also include the type of entity, e.g., city government, town council, or village board).

    (iii) Federally recognized tribes or any other culturally diverse organizations.

    (b) Soundness of Approach—Maximum 15 Points

    The applicant can receive up to 15 points for soundness of approach. The overall proposal will be considered under this criterion.

    Applicants must list the page numbers in the application that address these factors.

    The maximum 15 points for this criterion will be based on the following:

    (1) The proposal fits the objectives for which applications were invited, is clearly stated, and the applicant has defined how this proposal will be implemented. (7 Points)

    (2) The ability to provide the proposed financial and technical assistance based on prior accomplishments. (6 Points)

    (3) Cost effectiveness will be evaluated based on the budget in the application. The proposed grant amount and matching funds should be utilized to maximize capacity building at the recipient level. (2 Points)

    (c) Population and Income—Maximum 15 Points

    Population is based on the average population from the 2010 census data for the communities in which the recipients are located. The physical address, not mailing address, for each recipient must be used for this criterion. Community is defined for scoring purposes as a city, town, village, county, parish, borough, or census-designated place where the recipient's office is physically located.

    The applicant must submit the census data from the following Web site in the form of a printout of the applicable “Fact Sheet” to verify the population figures used for each recipient. The data can be accessed on the Internet at http://www.census.gov; click on “American FactFinder,” fill in field and click “Go”; the name and population data for each recipient location must be listed in this section.

    The average population of the recipient locations will be used and will be scored as follows:

    Population Scoring
  • (points)
  • 10,000 or less 5 10,001 to 20,000 4 20,001 to 30,000 3 30,001 to 40,000 2 40,001 to 50,000 1

    The average of the median household income for the communities where the recipients are physically located will determine the points awarded. The physical address, not mailing address, for each recipient must be used for this criterion. Applicants may compare the average recipient median household income to the State median household income or the national median household income, whichever yields the most points. The national median household income to be used is $51,914.

    The applicant must submit the income data in the form of a printout of the applicable information from the following Web site to verify the income for each recipient. The data being used is from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates (2006-2010 data set). The data can be accessed on the Internet at http://www.census.gov; click on “American FactFinder,” (under “Find Data” at bottom of page), “Advanced Search,”(click on “Show Me All” tab), “Topics,” “Dataset,” locate 2010 ACS 5 year estimates, close table, check the “Median Income” table (S1903 on page 2), fill in the “state, county or place” field (at top of page), select “Go” and click “View”; the name and income data for each recipient location must be listed in this section (use the Household and Median Income column). Points will be awarded as follows:

    Average recipient median
  • income
  • Scoring
  • (points)
  • Less than or equal to 70 percent of state or national median household income 10 Greater than 70, but less than or equal to 80 percent of state or national median household income 5 In excess of 80 percent of state or national median household Income 0
    (d) State Director's Points Based on Project Merit—Maximum 10 Points

    (1) This criterion will be addressed by the Agency, not the applicant.

    (2) Up to 10 points may be awarded by the Rural Development State Director to any application(s) that benefits their State regardless of whether the applicant is headquartered in their State. The total points awarded under this criterion, to all applications, will not exceed 10.

    (3) When an intermediary submits an application that will benefit a State that is not the same as the State in which the intermediary is headquartered, it is the intermediary's responsibility to notify the State Director of the State which is receiving the benefit of their application. In such cases, State Directors awarding points to applications benefiting their state must notify the reviewing State in writing.

    (4) Assignment of any points under this criterion requires a written justification and must be tied to and awarded based on how closely the application aligns with the Rural Development State Office's strategic goals.

    (e) Administrator Discretionary Points—Maximum 20 Points

    The Administrator may award up to 20 discretionary points for projects to address geographic distribution of funds, emergency conditions caused by economic problems, natural disasters and other initiatives identified by the Secretary.

    2. Review and Selection Process

    (a) Rating and ranking.

    Applications will be rated and ranked on a national basis by a review panel based on the “Evaluation Criteria” contained in this Notice.

    If there is a tied score after the applications have been rated and ranked, the tie will be resolved by reviewing the scores for ”Building Capacity and Expertise” and the applicant with the highest score in that category will receive a higher ranking. If the scores for “Building Capacity and Expertise” are the same, the scores will be compared for the next criterion, in sequential order, until one highest score can be determined.

    (b) Initial screening.

    The Agency will screen each application to determine eligibility during the period immediately following the application deadline. Listed below are examples of reasons for rejection from previous funding rounds. The following reasons for rejection are not all inclusive; however, they represent the majority of the applications previously rejected.

    (1) Recipients were not located in eligible rural areas based on the definition in this Notice.

    (2) Applicants failed to provide evidence of recipient's status, i.e., documentation supporting nonprofit evidence of organization.

    (3) Applicants failed to provide evidence of committed matching funds or matching funds were not committed for a period at least equal to the grant performance period.

    (4) Application did not follow the RCDI structure with an intermediary and recipients.

    (5) Recipients were not identified in the application.

    (6) Intermediary did not provide evidence it had been incorporated for at least 3 years as the applicant entity.

    (7) Applicants failed to address the “Evaluation Criteria.”

    (8) The purpose of the proposal did not qualify as an eligible RCDI purpose.

    (9) Inappropriate use of funds (e.g., construction or renovations).

    (10) The applicant proposed providing financial and technical assistance directly to individuals.

    (11) The application package was not received by closing date and time.

    F. Federal Award Administration Information 1. Federal Award Notice

    Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding official of the Agency shall make grants in ranked order to eligible applicants under the procedures set forth in this Notice.

    Successful applicants will receive a selection letter by mail containing instructions on requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award.

    This letter is not an authorization to begin performance. In addition, selected applicants will be requested to verify that components of the application have not changed at the time of selection and on the award obligation date, if requested by the Agency.

    The award is not approved until all information has been verified, and the awarding official of the Agency has signed Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds” and the grant agreement.

    Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification including appeal rights by mail.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

    Grantees will be required to do the following:

    (a) Execute a Rural Community Development Initiative Grant Agreement.

    (b) Execute Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”

    (c) Use Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” to request reimbursements. Provide receipts for expenditures, timesheets and any other documentation to support the request for reimbursement.

    (d) Provide financial status and project performance reports on a quarterly basis starting with the first full quarter after the grant award.

    (e) Maintain a financial management system that is acceptable to the Agency.

    (f) Ensure that records are maintained to document all activities and expenditures utilizing RCDI grant funds and matching funds. Receipts for expenditures will be included in this documentation.

    (g) Provide annual audits or management reports on Form RD 442-2, “Statement of Budget, Income and Equity,” and Form RD 442-3, “Balance Sheet,” depending on the amount of Federal funds expended and the outstanding balance.

    (h) Collect and maintain data provided by recipients on race, sex, and national origin and ensure recipients collect and maintain the same data on beneficiaries. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with OMB Federal Register notice, “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity,” (62 FR 58782), October 30, 1997. Sex data will be collected in accordance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. These items should not be submitted with the application but should be available upon request by the Agency.

    (i) Provide a final project performance report.

    (j) Identify and report any association or relationship with Rural Development employees.

    (k) The intermediary and recipient must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Executive Order 12250, Age Act of 1975, Executive Order 13166 Limited English Proficiency, and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E.

    (l) The grantee must comply with policies, guidance, and requirements as described in the following applicable Code of Federal Regulations, and any successor regulations:

    (i) 2 CFR parts 200 and 400 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements For Federal Awards).

    (ii) 2 CFR parts 417 and 180 (Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement)).

    (m) Form AD-3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” Must be signed by corporate applicants who receive an award under this Notice.

    3. Reporting

    After grant approval and through grant completion, you will be required to provide the following, as indicated in the Grant Agreement:

    (a) SF-425, “Federal Financial Report” and SF-PPR, “Performance Progress Report” will be required on a quarterly basis (due 30 working days after each calendar quarter). The Performance Progress Report shall include the elements described in the grant agreement.

    (b) Final financial and performance reports will be due 90 calendar days after the period of performance end date.

    (c) A summary at the end of the final report with elements as described in the grant agreement to assist in documenting the annual performance goals of the RCDI program for Congress.

    G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact

    Contact the Rural Development office in the State where the applicant's headquarters is located. A list of Rural Development State Offices contacts can be found via https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/CF_State_Office_Contacts.pdf.

    H. Other Information

    Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants, OMB No. 1894-0010 (applies to nonprofit applicants only—submission is optional).

    No reimbursement will be made for any funds expended prior to execution of the RCDI Grant Agreement unless the intermediary is a non-profit or educational entity and has requested and received written Agency approval of the costs prior to the actual expenditure.

    This exception is applicable for up to 90 days prior to grant closing and only applies to grantees that have received written approval but have not executed the RCDI Grant Agreement.

    The Agency cannot retroactively approve reimbursement for expenditures prior to execution of the RCDI Grant Agreement.

    Program Definitions

    Agency—The Rural Housing Service (RHS) or its successor.

    Beneficiary—Entities or individuals that receive benefits from assistance provided by the recipient.

    Capacity—The ability of a recipient to implement housing, community facilities, or community and economic development projects.

    Conflict of interest—A situation in which a person or entity has competing personal, professional, or financial interests that make it difficult for the person or business to act impartially. Regarding use of both grant and matching funds, Federal procurement standards prohibit transactions that involve a real or apparent conflict of interest for owners, employees, officers, agents, or their immediate family members having a financial or other interest in the outcome of the project; or that restrict open and free competition for unrestrained trade. Specifically, project funds may not be used for services or goods going to, or coming from, a person or entity with a real or apparent conflict of interest, including, but not limited to, owner(s) and their immediate family members. An example of conflict of interest occurs when the grantee's employees, board of directors, or the immediate family of either, have the appearance of a professional or personal financial interest in the recipients receiving the benefits or services of the grant.

    Federally recognized tribes—Tribal entities recognized and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, based on the most recent notice in the Federal Register published by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Tribally Designated Housing Entities are eligible RCDI recipients.

    Financial assistance—Funds, not to exceed $10,000 per award, used by the intermediary to purchase supplies and equipment to build the recipient's capacity.

    Funds—The RCDI grant and matching money.

    Intermediary—A qualified private, nonprofit (including faith-based and community organizations and philanthropic organizations), or public (including tribal) organization that provides financial and technical assistance to multiple recipients.

    Low-income rural community—An authority, district, economic development authority, regional council, or unit of government representing an incorporated city, town, village, county, township, parish, or borough whose income is at or below 80 percent of either the state or national Median Household Income as measured by the 2010 Census.

    Matching funds—Cash or confirmed funding commitments. Matching funds must be at least equal to the grant amount and committed for a period of not less than the grant performance period.

    Recipient—The entity that receives the financial and technical assistance from the Intermediary. The recipient must be a nonprofit community-based housing and development organization, a low-income rural community or a federally recognized Tribe.

    Rural and rural area—Any area other than (i) a city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants; and (ii) the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town.

    Technical assistance—Skilled help in improving the recipient's abilities in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development.

    Non-Discrimination Statement

    In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

    To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

    (1) By mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410;

    (2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or

    (3) Email: [email protected]

    Persons With Disabilities

    Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

    Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email.

    If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Appeal Process

    All adverse determinations regarding applicant eligibility and the awarding of points as part of the selection process are appealable pursuant to 7 CFR part 11. Instructions on the appeal process will be provided at the time an applicant is notified of the adverse decision.

    In the event the applicant is awarded a grant that is less than the amount requested, the applicant will be required to modify its application to conform to the reduced amount before execution of the grant agreement. The Agency reserves the right to reduce or withdraw the award if acceptable modifications are not submitted by the awardee within 15 working days from the date the request for modification is made. Any modifications must be within the scope of the original application.

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Richard A. Davis, Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10776 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Economic Analysis [Docket No. 179323306-7306-01] RIN 0691-XC067 Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments; Survey: Expenditures Incurred by Recipients of Biomedical Research and Development Awards From the National Institutes of Health (NIH) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on this survey of expenditures incurred by recipients of biomedical research and development awards from the NIH.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before July 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, or via email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer A. Bennett, Chief, Government Fixed Assets Branch, Government Division (BE-57), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, 4600 Silver Hill Rd., Washington, DC 20233 via phone at (301) 278-9769, or via email at [email protected]ov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The survey obtains the distribution of expenditures incurred by recipients of biomedical research awards from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in order to provide information on how the NIH award amounts are expended across several major categories. This information, along with wage and price data from other published sources, will be used to generate the Biomedical Research and Development Price Index (BRDPI). The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) develops this index for NIH under a reimbursable contract. The BRDPI is an index of prices paid for the labor, supplies, equipment, and other inputs required to perform the biomedical research the NIH supports in its intramural laboratories and through its awards to extramural organizations. The BRDPI is a vital tool for planning the NIH research budget and analyzing future NIH programs. A survey of award recipients is currently the only means for updating the expenditure category weights that are used to prepare the BRDPI.

    II. Authority

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on this survey of expenditures incurred by recipients of biomedical research and development awards from the NIH. This survey will be voluntary. The authority for NIH to collect information for the BRDPI is provided in 45 CFR, part 74, subpart C (Post-Award Requirements), in which section 74.21 sets forth explicit standards for grantees in establishing and maintaining financial management systems and records, and section 74.53 provides for the retention of such records, as well as NIH access to such records.

    BEA will administer the survey and analyze the survey results on behalf of NIH, through an interagency agreement between the two agencies. The authority for the NIH to contract with the Department of Commerce (DOC) to make this collection is the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535 and 1536).

    The special studies authority, 15 U.S.C. 1525, permits DOC to provide, upon the request of any person, firm, or public or private organization special studies on matters within DOC's authority, including preparing from its records special compilations, lists, bulletins, or reports, and furnishing transcripts or copies of its studies, compilations and other records. NIH's support for this research is consistent with its duties and authority under 42 U.S.C. 282.

    The information provided by the respondents will be kept confidential and be used for exclusively statistical purposes. This pledge of confidentiality is made under the confidential information protection provisions of title V, subtitle A of Public Law 107-347. Title V is the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA). Section 512 (Limitations on Use and Disclosure of Data and Information) of CIPSEA provides that data or information acquired by an agency under a pledge of confidentiality and for exclusively statistical purposes shall be used by officers, employees, or agents of the agency exclusively for statistical purposes. Data or information acquired by an agency under a pledge of confidentiality for exclusively statistical purposes shall not be disclosed by an agency in identifiable form for any use other than an exclusively statistical purpose, except with the informed consent of the respondent.

    Responses will be kept confidential and will not be disclosed in identifiable form to anyone, other than employees or agents of BEA or agents of NIH, without prior written permission of the person filing the report. By law, each employee or agent is subject to a jail term of up to 5 years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both, for disclosing to the public any identifiable information that is reported about a business or institution.

    In addition, section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554, Appendix C, § 515) applies to this survey. The collection and use of this information complies with all applicable information quality guidelines of the Office of Management and Budget, DOC, and BEA.

    III. Method of Collection

    A survey with a cover letter that includes a brief description of, and rationale for, the survey will be sent by email to potential respondents by the first week of August in 2017, 2018 and 2019. A report of the respondent's expenditures of the NIH award amounts, including NIH awards received as a sub-recipient from another institution, following the proposed format for expenditure categories included with the survey form, will be requested to be completed and submitted online no later than December 8, which, in most years, will be approximately 120 days after mailing. Survey respondents will be selected on the basis of award levels, which determine the weight of the respondents in the biomedical research and development price index. Potential respondents will include (1) the top 100 organizations in total awards, which account for about 77 percent of total awards; (2) 40 additional organizations that are not primarily in the “Research and Development (R&D) contracts” category; and (3) 10 additional organizations that are primarily in the “R&D contracts” category.

    IV. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0608-0069.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Universities or other organizations that are NIH award recipients.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 120.

    Estimated Time per Response: 16 hours, but may vary among respondents because of differences in institution structure, size, and complexity.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,920 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    V. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NIH, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10846 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-EA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration University of California, Riverside, et al. Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscope

    This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.

    Docket Number: 16-010. Applicant: University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 71702-03, October 18, 2016.

    Docket Number: 16-018. Applicant: UChicago Argonne, Lemont, IL 60439. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 89433-34, December 12, 2016.

    Docket Number: 16-022. Applicant: Regents of the University of Colorado, Denver, CO 80203. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Brno Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 89433-34, December 12, 2016.

    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as this instrument is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States at the time the instrument was ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order of each instrument.

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Gregory W. Campbell, Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office, Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10874 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-858] Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From India: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from India, covering the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective May 26, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elfi Blum, AD/CVD Operations Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0197.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On September 8, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request administrative review of the CVD order on OCTG from India.1 On September 30, 2016, Jindal SAW Ltd. (Jindal SAW) timely requested that the Department conduct an administrative review with respect to it.2 Jindal SAW was the only party to request an administrative review. On November 9, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of administrative review of the CVD order on certain OCTG from India, covering the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, with respect to Jindal SAW.3 On February 3, 2017, Jindal SAW timely withdrew its request for review.4

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 81 FR 62096 (September 8, 2016).

    2See Letter to the Department from Jindal SAW, dated September 30, 2016.

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 78778 (November 9, 2016) (Initiation Notice).

    4See Letter to the Department from Jindal SAW, dated February 3, 2017 (JS Withdrawal Request).

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, the Department published the initiation on November 9, 2016.5 Jindal SAW's withdrawal of administrative review request was submitted within the 90-day period following the publication of the Initiation Notice and, thus, is timely.6 No other party requested an administrative review of this CVD order. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review of the CVD order on certain OCTG from India.

    5See Initiation Notice.

    6Id.; see also JS Withdrawal Request.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. Because the Department is rescinding this review in its entirety, the entries to which this administrative review pertained shall be assessed countervailing duties at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice.

    Notifications

    This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of the APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with regulations and terms of an APO is a violation, which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(l) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10873 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-122-860] 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft From Canada: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective May 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Eastwood at (202) 482-3874, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition

    On April 27, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of 100- to 150-seat large civil aircraft (aircraft) from Canada, filed in proper form, on behalf of The Boeing Company (the petitioner).1 The petitioner is a domestic producer of aircraft.2

    1See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner “In the Matter of 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada—Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties” (April 27, 2017) (the Petition).

    2See Part Two of the Petition, at 26.

    On May 1 and 2, 2017, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition.3 The petitioner filed responses to these requests on May 4, 2017.4 On May 9, 2017, the petitioner filed an additional amendment to the Petition.5

    3See letter to the petitioner from the Department concerning supplemental questions on Part Three of the Petition (May 1, 2017); see also letter to the petitioner from the Department concerning supplemental questions on general issues (May 2, 2017).

    4See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner “100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada—Petitioner's Response to Supplemental Questions dated May 1, 2017” (May 4, 2017) (Petition Supplement); see also letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner “100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada—Petitioner's Response to Supplemental Questions dated May 2, 2017” (May 4, 2017).

    5See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner “100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada—Proposed Scope Clarification” (May 9, 2017) (Scope Clarification).

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the federal government of Canada (GOC), the provincial government of Quebec (GOQ), and the Government of the United Kingdom (U.K.) are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, with respect to imports of aircraft from Canada, and that imports of aircraft are threatening material injury to an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigation that the petitioner is requesting.6

    6See “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section, below.

    Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on April 27, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2), the period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.7

    7See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is aircraft from Canada. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Comments on Scope of the Investigation

    We received additional information from the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope, to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.8

    8See Scope Clarification.

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,9 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). The Department will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with the interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination in this investigation, and in the companion AD investigation currently being initiated. If scope comments include factual information,10 all such factual information should be limited to public information. The Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information (and also should be limited to public information), must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, June 16, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the deadline for initial comments.11 All such comments must be filed on the record of the concurrent AD investigation.

    9See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    10See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21).

    11See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. As stated above, all such comments and information must be filed on the record of the concurrent AD investigation.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).12 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement & Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    12See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements); see also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011), for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx, and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOC of the receipt of the Petition, and provided the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petition.13 Because the Department may require a questionnaire response from the Government of the U.K. in this investigation, the Department also provided representatives of the U.K. an opportunity for consultations. In response to the Department's letters, the GOC requested that consultations be held, and the U.K. also requested consultations.14 Such consultations were held on May 10 and 16, 2017, respectively.15 The invitation letters and memoranda regarding the consultations are on file electronically via ACCESS.

    13See Letter to the embassy of Canada from the Department “Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition on 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada” (April 27, 2017); see also letter to the embassy of the United Kingdom from the Department “Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition on 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada” (May 4, 2017).

    14See Letter to the Department from the Embassy of the GOC “100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada. Invitation for Consultations Regarding Investigation C-122-860” (May 8, 2017) and Letter to the Department from the Embassy of the U.K. “100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada. Invitation for Consultations Regarding Investigation C-122-860” (May 10, 2017).

    15See Department Memoranda “Countervailing Duty Petition on Aircraft from Canada: GOC Consultations” (May 10, 2017) and “Countervailing Duty Petition on Aircraft from Canada: U.K. Consultations” (May 16, 2017).

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,16 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.17

    16See section 771(10) of the Act.

    17See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petition).

    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that aircraft, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.18

    18 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada (Canada CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada, (Attachment II). This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own information regarding production of the domestic like product in 2016.19 The petitioner states that there are no other producers of aircraft in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.20

    19See General Issues Supplement, at 3-4 and Exhibit Supp.-8.

    20See Petition, at 26, 44-45 and Exhibits 44 and 67.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.21 First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).22 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.23 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.24 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

    21See Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    22See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    23See Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    24Id.

    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is requesting that the Department initiate.25

    25Id.

    Injury Test

    Because Canada is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Canada materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

    Allegations and Evidence of Threat of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is threatened with material injury, by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of the subject merchandise that are benefitting from countervailable subsidies. In addition, the petitioner alleges and provides supporting evidence that there is the potential that subject imports will imminently exceed the negligibility threshold. The petitioner's arguments regarding the potential for imports from Canada to imminently exceed the negligibility threshold are consistent with the statutory criteria for “negligibility in threat analysis” under section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act, which provides that imports shall not be treated as negligible if there is a potential that subject imports from a country will imminently exceed the statutory requirements for negligibility.26

    26See Petition, at 28-29 and Exhibit 44.

    The petitioner contends that the threat of material injury is illustrated by the domestic industry's vulnerability, the nature of the alleged countervailable subsidies, existing unused production capacity available to imminently and substantially increase exports of subject merchandise to the United States, significant increase in the market penetration of subject imports and likelihood of further increase in the volume and market penetration of subject imports, adverse price effects on domestic prices, and negative effects on product development and production.27 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding threat of material injury and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.28

    27Id., at 1-24, 28-29, 46-78 and Exhibits 1-12, 17, 21-22, 24, 36-39, 40-41, 43-54, 66, 97-106, 108-109; see also General Issues Supplement, at 2-3 and Exhibits Supp.-6 and Supp.-7.

    28See Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Threat of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada.

    Initiation of CVD Investigation

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that (1) alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting the allegations.

    The petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of aircraft from Canada benefited from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOC, GOQ, and the U.K. The Department examined the Petition and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, and/or exporters of aircraft from Canada receive countervailable subsidies from the GOC, GOQ, and the U.K.

    Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.29 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.30 The amendments to sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this CVD investigation.31

    29See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).

    30See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015). The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.

    31Id., at 46794-95.

    Subsidy Allegations

    Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on each of the 14 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see the CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

    In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination in this investigation no later than 65 days after the date of initiation.

    Average Useful Life (AUL)

    In the Petition, the petitioner used a 20-year AUL period based on proprietary information contained in an affidavit.32 However, 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2)(i) presumes “the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the AUL of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System,” as updated by the Department of the Treasury. The IRS table lists a 10 year AUL for the manufacture of aerospace products.33 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2)(i), the Department may use a different AUL period if a party claims and establishes that the IRS tables do not reasonably reflect the company-specific AUL or the country-wide AUL for the industry under investigation. Additionally, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2)(iv), “{u}nder certain extraordinary circumstances,” the Department “may consider whether an allocation period other than the AUL is appropriate.” Therefore, the Department requests that interested parties submit comments regarding the AUL period applicable in this investigation, including supporting factual information, by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, June 16, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the deadline for initial comments.34

    32See Petition at Exhibits 14 and 152, and Petition Supplement at 1.

    33See Memorandum to the File, “Class Life for Manufacture of Aerospace Products,” dated concurrently with this notice, at Asset class 37.2.

    34See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    Respondent Selection

    Although the Department normally relies on the number of producers/exporters identified in the petition and/or on import data from Customs and Border Protection to determine whether to select a limited number of producers/exporters for individual examination in CVD investigations, the petitioner identified only one company as a producer/exporter of aircraft from Canada: Bombardier, Inc. We currently know of no additional producers/exporters of the merchandise under consideration from Canada, and the petitioner provided information from independent sources as support.35 Accordingly, the Department intends to examine the sole producer/exporter identified in the petition. Parties wishing to comment on respondent selection must do so within five days from the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Any such comments must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the due date, and must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

    35See Petition at 27, 29, and Exhibit 61; and Scope Clarification at 3-5 and Exhibit Supp.-12.

    Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOC and U.K. via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to the one known exporter named in the Petition, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of aircraft from Canada are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.36 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 37 otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    36See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.

    37See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i) through (iv). The regulation requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.38 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 39 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements.

    38See section 782(b) of the Act.

    39See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under Administrative Protective Order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 17, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is aircraft, regardless of seating configuration, that have a standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity and a minimum 2,900 nautical mile range, as these terms are defined below.

    “Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity” refers to the capacity to accommodate 100 to 150 passengers, when eight passenger seats are configured for a 36-inch pitch, and the remaining passenger seats are configured for a 32-inch pitch. “Pitch” is the distance between a point on one seat and the same point on the seat in front of it.

    “Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity” does not delineate the number of seats actually in a subject aircraft or the actual seating configuration of a subject aircraft. Thus, the number of seats actually in a subject aircraft may be below 100 or exceed 150.

    A “minimum 2,900 nautical mile range” means:

    (i) able to transport between 100 and 150 passengers and their luggage on routes equal to or longer than 2,900 nautical miles; or

    (ii) covered by a U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) type certificate or supplemental type certificate that also covers other aircraft with a minimum 2,900 nautical mile range.

    The scope includes all aircraft covered by the description above, regardless of whether they enter the United States fully or partially assembled, and regardless of whether, at the time of entry into the United States, they are approved for use by the FAA.

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 8802.40.0040. The merchandise may alternatively be classifiable under HTSUS subheading 8802.40.0090. Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-10957 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-859] 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft From Canada: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective May 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karine Gziryan at (202) 482-4081 or Lilit Astvatsatrian at (202) 482-6412, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition

    On April 27, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of 100- to 150-seat large civil aircraft (aircraft) from Canada, filed in proper form, on behalf of The Boeing Company (Boeing) (the petitioner).1 The petitioner is a domestic producer of aircraft.2

    1See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner “In the Matter of 100- To 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada—Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties” (April 27, 2017) (the Petition).

    2See Petition, at 26.

    On May 2, 2017, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition.3 The petitioner filed responses to these requests on May 4, 2017.4 On May 9, 2017, the petitioner filed an additional amendment to the Petition.5

    3See Department Letter re: Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada: Supplemental Questions, dated May 2, 2017 (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Department Letter re: Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada: Supplemental Questions, dated May 2, 2017 (Antidumping Supplemental Questionnaire).

    4See Letter from the petitioner re: 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada—Petitioner's Response to AD Supplemental Questionnaire, dated May 4, 2017 (Petition Supplement); see also Letter from the petitioner re: 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada—Petitioner's Response to Supplemental Questions, dated May 2, 2017 (General Issues Supplement).

    5See Letter from the petitioner re: 100- to 150- Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada—Proposed Scope Clarification, dated May 9, 2017 (Scope Clarification).

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of aircraft from Canada are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are threatening material injury to an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information that is reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

    The Department finds that the petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that the petitioner is requesting.6

    6See “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section below.

    Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on April 27, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is aircraft from Canada. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Comments on Scope of the Investigation

    We received additional information from the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope, to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.7

    7See Scope Clarification.

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,8 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). The Department will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination in this investigation and the companion CVD investigation concurrently being initiated. If scope comments include factual information,9 all such factual information should be limited to public information. The Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, June 6, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information (and also should be limited to public information), must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, June 16, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the deadline for initial comments.10 All such comments must be filed on the record of the concurrent CVD investigation.

    8See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 2007).

    9See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21).

    10See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1).

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. As stated above, all such comments and information must be filed on the record of the concurrent CVD investigation.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).11 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    11See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaire

    The Department is giving interested parties an opportunity to provide comments on the appropriate physical characteristics of aircraft to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaire. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they determine are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. However, interested parties should note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. The Department bases product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences between products. In other words, although there may be numerous physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe aircraft, it may be that only a select few product characteristics are commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing product characteristics, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 31, 2017. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information (and should be limited to public information), must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EST on June 12, 2017, which is the first business day 10 calendar days from the deadline for initial comments.12 All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above.

    12See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1) (“For both electronically filed and manually filed documents, if the applicable due date falls on a non-business day, the Secretary will accept documents that are filed on the next business day.”)

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,13 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.14

    13See section 771(10) of the Act.

    14See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petition).

    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that aircraft, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.15

    15 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada (Canada AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada, (Attachment II). This checklist is dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own information regarding production of the domestic like product in 2016.16 The petitioner states that there are no other producers of aircraft in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.17

    16See General Issues Supplement, at 3-4 and Exhibit Supp.-8.

    17See Petition, at 26, 44-45 and Exhibits 44 and 67.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.18 First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).19 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.20 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.21 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

    18See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    19See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    20See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    21Id.

    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that it is requesting that the Department initiate.22

    22Id.

    Allegations and Evidence of Threat of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is threatened with material injury, by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioner alleges and provides supporting evidence that there is the potential that subject imports will imminently exceed the negligibility threshold provided under 771(24)(A) of the Act. The petitioner's arguments regarding the potential for imports from Canada to imminently exceed the negligibility threshold are consistent with the statutory criteria for “negligibility in threat analysis” under section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act, which provides that imports shall not be treated as negligible if there is a potential that subject imports from a country will imminently exceed the statutory requirements for negligibility.23

    23See Petition, at 28-29 and Exhibit 44.

    The petitioner contends that the threat of material injury is illustrated by the domestic industry's vulnerability, existing unused production capacity available to imminently and substantially increase exports of subject merchandise to the United States, significant increase in the market penetration of subject imports and likelihood of further increase in the volume and market penetration of subject imports, adverse price effects on domestic prices, and negative effects on product development and production.24 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding threat of material injury and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.25

    24Id., at 1-24, 28-29, 46-78 and Exhibits 1-12, 17, 21-22, 24, 36-39, 40-41, 43-54, 66, 97-106, 108-109; see also General Issues Supplement, at 2-3 and Exhibits Supp.-6 and Supp.-7.

    25See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Threat of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada.

    Allegation of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less-than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate this AD investigation of imports of aircraft from Canada. The sources of data for the U.S. price and NV, as well as, where applicable, related price adjustments, are discussed in greater detail in the initiation checklist, issued concurrently with this notice.26

    26See generally Canada AD Initiation Checklist.

    Export Price

    The petitioner based the U.S. price on future aircraft purchase commitments identified in the U.S. customer's financial statements that relate to a 2016 contract between the customer and the Canadian producer, Bombardier, Inc. (Bombardier), for the purchase of Bombardier's CS100 series aircraft.27 The petitioner made deductions from the U.S. price for ancillary contract charges consistent with industry practice.28

    27Id; see also Petition, at Exhibit 42.

    28Id; see also Petition, at 118-110 and Exhibits 1 and 42.

    Normal Value Home Market Price

    The petitioner provided home market price information based on an article in The Globe and Mail citing industry sources as to the price to be paid by Air Canada, after discounts, for aircraft purchased from Bombardier.29 The petitioner stated that the finalized order related to the home market sale for an aircraft model comparable to the aircraft model sold in the United States.30

    29Id, at 6-7 see also Petition at 120 and Exhibits 41, 42, 148 and 154.

    30Id; see also Petition, at 120-121.

    The petitioner provided information indicating that sales of aircraft in the home market were made at prices below the cost of production (COP) and, as a result, calculated NV based on constructed value (CV).31 For further discussion of COP and NV based on CV, see below.32

    31Id.

    32 In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, amending section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for these investigations, the Department will request information necessary to calculate the CV and COP to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product have been made at prices that represent less than the COP of the product. The Department no longer requires a COP allegation to conduct this analysis.

    Cost of Production and Constructed Value

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM); selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses; financial expenses; and packing expenses. The petitioner calculated COM based on published information and estimating tools that it uses in the normal course of business.33 The petitioner calculated the total recurring manufacturing costs included in COM by dividing the total estimated recurring costs over the life cycle of Bombardier's C-Series program by the projected number of units produced over the same period based on Bombardier's published delivery schedule and announced production rates.34 To calculate non-recurring research and development, the petitioner divided Bombardier's publicly disclosed non-recurring expenses by the projected number of units to be produced.35 To determine factory overhead, SG&A, and financial expense rates, the petitioner relied on the data in Bombardier's 2016 audited financial statements.36

    33See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.

    34Id; see also Petition, at 123-124.

    35Id; see also Petition, at 124-125.

    36Id; see also Petition, at 125.

    Because the home market price fell below COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, as noted above, the petitioner calculated NV based on CV.37 Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of COM, SG&A, financial expenses, packing expenses, and profit. The petitioner calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A expenses, and financial expenses used to calculate COP.38 Since Bombardier's financial statements reflect a loss, and there are no other financial statements available for a large aircraft manufacturer in Canada, the petitioner relied on Boeing's 2016 audited financial statements to calculate the CV profit rate.39

    37Id; see also Petition, at 126.

    38Id.

    39Id.

    Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of aircraft from Canada, are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. Based on a comparison of EP to NV (based on CV), in accordance with sections 772, and 773(a) and (e) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for aircraft is 79.82 percent.40

    40See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.

    Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation

    Based upon our examination of the AD Petition on aircraft from Canada, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of aircraft from Canada are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination in this investigation no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

    On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (TPEA), which made numerous amendments to the Act.41 The TPEA does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.42 The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this investigation.43

    41See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).

    42See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice).

    43Id., at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.

    Respondent Selection

    Although the Department normally relies on the number of producers/exporters identified in the petition and/or on import data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to determine whether to select a limited number of producers/exporters for individual examination in AD investigations, the petitioner identified only one company as a producer/exporter of aircraft from Canada: Bombardier, Inc. We currently know of no additional producers/exporters of the merchandise under consideration from Canada and the petitioner provided information from an independent source as support. Accordingly, the Department intends to examine the sole producer/exporter identified in the petition. Parties wishing to comment on respondent selection must do so within five days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Any such comments must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the due date, and must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

    Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the Government of Canada via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to the one known exporter named in the Petition, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of aircraft from Canada are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.44 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 45 otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    44See section 733(a) of the Act.

    45Id.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The regulation requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under CFR 19 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission: Under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.46 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 47 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements.

    46See section 782(b) of the Act.

    47See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under Administrative Protective Order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: May 17, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is aircraft, regardless of seating configuration, that have a standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity and a minimum 2,900 nautical mile range, as these terms are defined below.

    “Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity” refers to the capacity to accommodate 100 to 150 passengers, when eight passenger seats are configured for a 36-inch pitch, and the remaining passenger seats are configured for a 32-inch pitch. “Pitch” is the distance between a point on one seat and the same point on the seat in front of it.

    “Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity” does not delineate the number of seats actually in a subject aircraft or the actual seating configuration of a subject aircraft. Thus, the number of seats actually in a subject aircraft may be below 100 or exceed 150.

    A “minimum 2,900 nautical mile range” means:

    (i) able to transport between 100 and 150 passengers and their luggage on routes equal to or longer than 2,900 nautical miles; or

    (ii) covered by a U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) type certificate or supplemental type certificate that also covers other aircraft with a minimum 2,900 nautical mile range.

    The scope includes all aircraft covered by the description above, regardless of whether they enter the United States fully or partially assembled, and regardless of whether, at the time of entry into the United States, they are approved for use by the FAA.

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 8802.40.0040. The merchandise may alternatively be classifiable under HTSUS subheading 8802.40.0090. Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-10733 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-489-502] Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Turkey: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey (steel pipes and tubes) for the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective May 26, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jolanta Lawska, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-8362.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On May 9, 2017, based on a timely request for review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.213(b) by Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. (collectively, Borusan),1 the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on steel pipes and tubes from Turkey covering the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).2 On May 9, 2017, Borusan timely withdrew its request for an administrative review.3 No other party requested a review of these producers and/or exporters of subject merchandise.

    1See Letter from Borusan, “Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tubes from Turkey, Case No. C-489-502: Request for Administrative Review (March 31, 2017).

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 21513 (May 9, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    3See Letter from Borusan, “Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tubes from Turkey, Case No. C-489-502: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,” dated May 9, 2017.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this review, Borusan timely withdrew its request by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the countervailing duty order. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on steel pipes and tubes from Turkey covering the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, in its entirety.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. Because the Department is rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, the entries to which this administrative review pertained shall be assessed countervailing duties at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10758 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-822, A-583-820] Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China and Taiwan: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective May 26, 2017.

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain helical spring lock washers from the People's Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of the antidumping duty orders.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andre Gziryan, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-2201.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On November 1, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset review of the antidumping duty orders on lock washers from the PRC and Taiwan pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).1

    1See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 81 FR 75808 (November 1, 2016).

    As a result of its review, the Department determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain helical spring lock washers from the PRC and Taiwan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail should the orders be revoked.2

    2See Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Fourth Five-Year Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 82 FR 12805 (March 7, 2017).

    On May 16, 2017, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to section 751(c)(1) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain helical spring lock washers from the PRC and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3

    3See Helical Spring Lock Washers from China and Taiwan; Determinations, 82 FR 22560 (May 16, 2017) and USITC Publication 4689 (May 2017), titled Helical Spring Lock Washers from China and Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-624-625 (Fourth Review).

    Scope of the Orders

    The products covered by the orders are lock washers of carbon steel, of carbon alloy steel, or of stainless steel, heat-treated or non-heat-treated, plated or non-plated, with ends that are off-line. Lock washers subject to the orders are currently classifiable under subheadings 7318.21.0000, 7318.21.0030, and 7318.21.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.4

    4 A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan,” dated March 7, 2017.

    Continuation of the Orders

    As a result of these determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping orders on certain helical spring lock washers from the PRC and Taiwan. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of these orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of the orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation.

    This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10871 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF450 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting and hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Non-Commercial Fisheries Advisory Committee (NCFAC) to discuss and make recommendations on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.

    DATES:

    The NCFAC will meet on Thursday, June 8, 2017, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon. All times listed are local island times. For specific times and agendas, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The NCFAC will meet at the Council Office, 1164 Bishop St, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813 and by teleconference. The teleconference will be conducted by telephone. The teleconference numbers are: U.S. toll-free: 1-888-482-3560 or International Access: +1 647 723-3959, and Access Code: 5228220.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (808) 522-8220.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public comment periods will be provided in the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meeting will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

    Schedule and Agenda for the NCFAC Meeting Thursday, June 8, 2017, 10 a.m.-12 noon 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Review of Agenda 3. Council Actions for 170th Meeting A. Options for Fishing Regulations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Monument Expansion Area B. Research Priorities i. Cooperative Research ii. Magnuson Stevens Act Five-year Research Priorities C. Sustainable Fisheries Fund Marine Conservation Plan D. Re-specification for Annual Catch Limits for the Main Hawaiian Islands Kona crab Fishery 4. Non-Commercial Fishery Updates A. Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) i. MRIP Strategic Plan Update i. MRIP Regional Implementation Plan Update B. Pacific Islands Regional Implementation Plan Update 5. Non-Commercial Fisheries Module in the Annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Reports 6. Non-Commercial Fishery Issues 7. Public Comment 8. Discussion and Recommendations 9. Other Business

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under § 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10774 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-X451 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Skate Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Monday, June 12, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, 31 Hampshire Street, Mansfield, MA 02048; telephone: (508) 339-2200.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda

    The Advisory Panel will review Plan Development Team (PDT) analysis regarding skate bait possession limits. They will discuss and select preferred alternatives for Framework 4 to the Skate Fishery Management Plan which modifies skate bait possession limits and associated measures. The panel will also review and discuss PDT analysis, to date, regarding the upcoming specifications framework which would set specifications for FYs 2018 and 2019 and would remove the prohibition on landing barndoor skates. Other business, as necessary.

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10775 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF459 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC) Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel (NTAP) will hold a meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, June 12, 2017 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Downtown Providence Courtyard by Marriott, 32 Exchange Terrace, Providence, RI; telephone: (401) 272-1191.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site, www.mafmc.org will also have details on the proposed agenda and briefing materials.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NTAP is a joint advisory panel of the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils composed of Council members, fishing industry, academic, and government and non-government fisheries experts. The NTAP was established to bring commercial fishing, fisheries science, and fishery management professionals in the northeastern US together to identify concerns about regional research survey performance and data, to identify methods to address or mitigate these concerns, and to promote mutual understanding and acceptance of the results of this work among their peers and in the broader community.

    Topics to be discussed by the NTAP include: Identify approaches to address or mitigate concerns about regional research survey performance and data; review of NEFSC WG Meeting and identify next steps; review previous work and discuss analyses and outputs; discuss plans for specific application in Yellowtail Flounder TRAC assessment; discuss use of time during 2018 on industry vessels (F/Vs Nobska and Karen Elizabeth); review NTAP's participation on one day Bigelow trips; discuss timing of next meeting and review actions identified.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10799 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Science Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce (DOC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of two meetings of the Science Advisory Board (SAB). The members will discuss issues outlined in the section on Matters to be considered.

    DATES:

    There are two meetings: the first meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2017 from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) and the second meeting is scheduled for August 31, 2017 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. For the latest agenda please refer to the SAB Web site: http://sab.noaa.gov/SABMeetings.aspx.

    ADDRESSES:

    Conference call. Public access is available at: NOAA, SSMC 3 Room 11836, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD for the July 5 meeting and SSMC 3, Room 7836 for the August 31 meeting. Members of the public will not be able to dial in to this meeting.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Cynthia Decker, Executive Director, SSMC3, Room 11230, 1315 East-West Hwy., Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone Number: 301-734-1156; Email: [email protected]; or visit the SAB Web site at http://sab.noaa.gov/SABMeetings.aspx.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management.

    Status: The July 5, 2017 meeting will be open to public participation with a 5-minute public comment period at TBD PM EDT. The August 31, 2017 meeting will have a 5-minute public comment period at 5:20 p.m. EDT. The SAB expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of three minutes. Written comments for the July 5, 2017 meeting by June 28, 2017 and written comments for the August 31, 2017 meeting should be received in the SAB Executive Director's Office by August 24, 2017 to provide sufficient time for SAB review. Written comments received after by the SAB Executive Director after these dates will be distributed to the SAB, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date.

    Special Accommodations: These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations may be directed to the Executive Director no later than 12 p.m. on June 28 for the July 5 meeting and by 12 p.m. on August 24 for the August 31 meeting.

    Matters to be Considered: The meeting on July 5 will include discussions on short term work plan topics for the SAB and the revised Terms of Reference and proposed members for the proposed High Performance Computing subcommittee. The August 31 meeting will include further discussion on the SAB short term work plan and discussion of results of the subcommittee reviews. Meeting materials, including work products will be made available on the SAB Web site: http://sab.noaa.gov/SABMeetings.aspx.

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Paul Johnson, Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer/CAO, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10798 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF400 Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Applications for one new scientific research permit and five scientific research permit renewals.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received six scientific research permit application requests relating to Pacific salmon and steelhead. The proposed research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management and conservation efforts. The applications may be viewed online at: https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov/preview/preview_open_for_comment.cfm.

    DATES:

    Comments or requests for a public hearing on the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m. Pacific standard time on June 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments on the applications should be sent to the Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274. Comments may also be sent via fax to 503-230-5441 or by email to [email protected] (include the permit number in the subject line of the fax or email).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rob Clapp, Portland, OR (ph.: 503-231-2314), Fax: 503-230-5441, email: [email protected]). Permit application instructions are available from the address above, or online at https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Species Covered in This Notice

    The following listed species are covered in this notice:

    Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): Endangered upper Columbia River (UCR); threatened Snake River (SR) spring/summer (spr/sum).

    Steelhead (O. mykiss): Threatened UCR; threatened SR; threatened middle Columbia River (MCR), threatened Lower Columbia River (LCR).

    Authority

    Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.

    Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES). Such hearings are held at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.

    Applications Received Permit 1379-7R

    The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) is seeking to renew a permit that currently allows them to take listed salmonids (UCR steelhead and Chinook) while conducting research designed to (1) increase what we know about the status and productivity of various fish populations, (2) collect data on migratory and exploitation (harvest) patterns, and (3) develop baseline information on various population and habitat parameters in order to guide salmonid restoration strategies. Much of the work in the permit has been conducted for nearly 20 years—first under permit 1134, and then under six previous versions of 1379. The permit would comprise three studies: Project 1—Juvenile Upriver Bright Fall Chinook Sampling at the Hanford Reach; Project 2—Adult Sockeye Sampling at Tumwater and Wells Dams; and Project 3—Acoustic trawl survey for Lake Wenatchee juvenile sockeye salmon.

    The research, as a whole, would benefit listed fish by helping managers set in-river and ocean harvest regimes so that they have minimal impacts on listed populations. It would also help managers prioritize projects in a way that gives maximum benefit to listed species—including projects designed to help the listed fish recover. The researchers would use beach- and stick seines to capture and tag juvenile fish in the Hanford reach of the Columbia River and capture fish during mid-water trawls in Lake Wenatchee. Those fish that are not immediately released upon capture would be transported to a holding facility where they would be anesthetized, examined for marks, adipose-clipped, coded wire tagged, allowed to recover, and released. The researchers would also collect, anesthetize, tissue-sample, and tag adult salmonids at Tumwater and Wells Dams in Washington State. The CRITFC researchers do not intend to kill any of the fish being captured but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

    Permit 13381-3R

    The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) is seeking to renew their permit to annually take natural juvenile SR spring/summer Chinook salmon and SR steelhead in various places in the Salmon River drainage in Idaho and at Little Goose and Lower Granite Dams on the lower Snake River. The purpose of the research is to continue monitoring parr-to-smolt survival and outmigration behavior in SR wild spring/summer Chinook salmon populations from Idaho. Steelhead juveniles that are inadvertently collected would also be tagged to help supplement an ongoing Idaho Department of Fish and Game study. The research would benefit the fish by continuing to supply managers with the information they need to budget water releases at hydropower facilities in ways designed to help protect migrating juvenile salmonids. The information gained would also be used to build long-term data sets on parr-to-smolt migration behavior and survival rates. This information, coupled with water quality, weather, and climate data, is intended to provide a foundation for understanding these populations' life histories—the knowledge of which is critical to building effective recovery actions. The listed fish would be captured (using seines, dip nets, and electrofishing), anesthetized, tagged, and released. A portion of these fish would also be re-captured at a smolt bypass facility, anesthetized, weighed, measured, and released. The researchers do not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small percentage may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

    Permit 13382-3R

    The NWFSC is seeking to renew for five years a permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile threatened SR spr/sum Chinook salmon and juvenile threatened SR steelhead at various places in the Snake River in Idaho and in various streams of Southeast Washington and Northeast Oregon. Most of the activities under this permit have been under way for nearly 20 years—first under Permit 1406 and then under previous versions of Permit 13382. Under the permit, the listed fish would be variously captured (using seines, dip nets, traps, and electrofishing), anesthetized, tissue sampled, weighed, measured, and released. They researchers would also add another study for this permit—one in which a small number of juvenile fish would be caught using electrofishing methods, anesthetized, and then held at varying temperature regimes to measure their cardiac performance. The fish would then in all cases be allowed to recover from the anesthetic and returned live to the place of their capture.

    The purposes of the research are therefore (1) to continue monitoring the effects of supplementation among steelhead and spring/summer Chinook salmon populations in Idaho, and (2) measure cardiac performance in juvenile salmonids. The research would benefit the fish by continuing to supply managers with the information they need when seeking to use hatchery programs to conserve listed species. The researchers do not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but some may die as an unintended result of the process.

    Permit 17222-2R

    The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO) are seeking a five-year permit to annually take MCR steelhead during the course of research designed to determine the feasibility of PIT-tagging juvenile summer/fall Chinook (a non-listed species) in the Deschutes River, Oregon. The purpose of the research is to generate population metrics such as juvenile growth rates, smolt-to-adult return ratios, size/condition at emigration, etc. This information would be used to develop performance indicators for monitoring the fishes' status and trends. This research would benefit listed species by helping managers develop a picture of river health and salmonid population trends in the Deschutes River. That information, in turn, would be used in recovery planning efforts and generally incorporated into resource management decisions that may affect the Deschutes River. The researchers intend to use seines to capture the fish and all captured MCR steelhead will be released immediately. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

    Permit 17306-2R

    The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is seeking a five-year permit to capture threatened MCR steelhead (adults and juveniles) in the upper Deschutes River, Oregon. The various proposed activities would include adult and juvenile snorkel surveys throughout the basin, screw trapping, backpack and boat electrofishing and mark/recapture studies, hook and line surveys, telemetry, seining, spawning ground surveys using weirs and redd counts, monitoring habitat restoration projects, and setting traps and nets in reservoirs for population monitoring. Data collected from this work would be used to inform management decisions in the Deschutes River watershed. Biologists from the ODFW have been conducting this work in the area for decades. The researchers do not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small percentage may be killed as an inadvertent result of the activities.

    Permit 21220

    The National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) is seeking a five-year permit to take adult and juvenile LCR steelhead while conducting in-depth ecosystem research at an aquatic monitoring site on Martha Creek on the Gifford-Pinchot National Forest in the State of Washington. The NEON researchers intend to collect a comprehensive suite of biotic and abiotic data at the site, including sampling for fish, macroinvertebrates, microbes, plants, algae, sediments, water quality, and reaeration. Additionally, they would make discharge measurements, conduct a riparian habitat assessment and a morphological survey. The purpose of the research is to establish an ecological observatory with the goal of monitoring climate change, land use changes, and invasive species for the next 30 years.

    The researchers would use backpack electrofishing equipment to capture fish. The fish would then be anesthetized, identified, photographed, measured, allowed to recover, and released back to the stream. Some tissue samples may be taken as well. The research would benefit listed fish by generating long-term data sets on the animals' health, abundance, and status in general. Those data, in turn, would be used to inform management decisions on the Gifford-Pinchot National Forest and the lower Columbia River ecosystem. The researchers do not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small percentage may be killed as an inadvertent result of the activities.

    This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10827 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Processed Products Family of Forms AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before July 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Melissa Yencho, (301) 427-8193 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a current information collection.

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) annually collects information from seafood and industrial fishing processing plants on the volume and value of their processed fishery products and their monthly employment figures. NOAA also collects monthly production volume of fish meal, oil, and solubles. The information gathered is used by NOAA in the economic and social analyses developed when proposing and evaluating fishery management actions.

    II. Method of Collection

    In the current survey, NOAA Fisheries provides each processor with a pre-printed survey form that includes the products produced by that processor in the previous year. The processor only needs to fill in the quantity of product, value of product, monthly employment, and add any new products. New firms to the survey are provided blank forms. Responses are submitted by mail, via postage-paid envelopes provided by NOAA Fisheries.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0018.

    Form Number: NOAA Forms 88-13, 88-13C.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 747.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes for an Annual Processed Products Report and 15 minutes for a monthly Fishery Products Report Fish Meal and Oil.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 392.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10787 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF452 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Skate Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, 31 Hampshire Street, Mansfield, MA 02048; telephone: (508) 339-2200.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda

    The Committee will review Plan Development Team (PDT) analysis regarding skate bait possession limits. They will discuss and select preferred alternatives for Framework 4 to the Skate Fishery Management Plan which modifies skate bait possession limits and associated measures. The committee will also review and discuss PDT analysis, to date, regarding the upcoming specifications framework which would set specifications for FYs 2018 and 2019 and would remove the prohibition on landing barndoor skates. Other business, as necessary.

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under § 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10778 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No.: PTO-P-2017-0023] Grant of Interim Extension of the Term of U.S. Patent No. 5,912,231; LOCILEX® (pexiganan) AGENCY:

    United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Interim patent term extension.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued an order granting interim extension for a one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,912,231.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary C. Till by telephone at (571) 272-7755; by mail marked to her attention and addressed to the Commissioner for Patents, Mail Stop Hatch-Waxman PTE, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by fax marked to her attention at (571) 273-7755; or by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 156 of Title 35, United States Code, generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a period of up to five years if the patent claims a product, or a method of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined regulatory review, and that the patent may be extended for interim periods of up to one year if the regulatory review is anticipated to extend beyond the expiration date of the patent.

    On May 9, 2017, Scripps Research Institute, the patent owner of record, timely filed an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a second interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,912,231. The patent claims a composition of the active ingredient pexiganan of the human drug product LOCILEX®. The application for patent term extension indicates that New Drug Application (NDA) 29-930 was submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on July 24, 1998.

    Review of the patent term extension application indicates that, except for permission to market or use the product commercially, the subject patent would be eligible for an extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156, and that the patent should be extended for one year as required by 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5)(B). Because the regulatory review period will continue beyond the extended expiration date of the patent, June 15, 2017, interim extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) is appropriate.

    An interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,912,231 is granted for a period of one year from the extended expiration date of the patent.

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Robert Bahr, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10964 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) Actions

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce

    Title: Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) Actions

    OMB Control Number: 0651-0040.

    Form Number(s):

    • PTO 2120 • PTO 2151 • PTO 2153 • PTO 2188 • PTO 2189 • PTO 2190

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Number of Respondents: 78,000 per year.

    Average Hours per Response: Between 10 minutes (0.17 hours) and 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to gather the necessary information, prepare the materials, and to submit it to the USPTO, depending upon the instrument used.

    Burden Hours: 15,997.67 hours.

    Cost Burden: $5,744,000.00.

    Needs and Uses: This information is required by the Trademark Act of 1946, Sections 13, 14, and 20, 15 U.S.C. 1063, 1064, and 1070, respectively. The information in this collection is a matter of public record and is used by the public for a variety of private business purposes related to establishing and enforcing trademark rights. This information is important to the public, as both common law trademark owners and Federal trademark registrants must actively protect their own rights. This collection includes the information needed by the USPTO to review the various types of petitions to cancel the registration of a mark, notices of opposition to the registration of a mark, extensions of time to file an opposition, appeals, and other papers filed in connection with inter partes and ex parte proceedings.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.

    OMB Desk Officer: Nicholas A. Fraser, email: [email protected] Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Further information can be obtained by:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0651-0040 copy request” in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records and Information Governance Division Director, Office of the Chief Technology Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before June 26, 2017 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to [email protected], or by fax to 202-395-5167, marked to the attention of Nicholas A. Fraser.

    Marcie Lovett, Records and Information Governance Division Director, OCTO, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10759 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following products and services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 804—Grill Basket Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Cincinnati Association for the Blind, Cincinnati, OH NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 10760—Activity Pack, Licensed, Pokemon, Includes Shipper 20760 MR 10761—Sticker Pack, Licensed, Pokemon, Includes Shipper 20760 MR 10762—Pen, Licensed, Pokemon, Includes Shipper 20762 MR 10763—Kid's Baking Tools, Licensed, Whisk and Spoon, Includes Shipper 20763 MR 10764—Kid's Baking Tools, Licensed, Turner and Spatula, Includes Shipper 20763 MR 10765—Kid's Baking Tools, Licensed, Rolling Pin and Cookie Cutters, Includes Shipper 20763 MR 10766—Kid's Baking Tools, Licensed, Decorating Set, Includes Shipper 20763 Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 1176—Mop, Sticky MR 1177—Refill, Mop, Sticky Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC

    The following information is applicable to all products listed above.

    Mandatory for: The requirements of military commissaries and exchanges in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, 41 CFR 51-6.4. Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency Distribution: C-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 5340-00-682-1505—Padlock, Laminated Case, 1.5″ Wide Brass, with Chain, Set of 5 5340-00-838-5266—Padlock, Laminated Case, 1.5″ Wide Brass, with Chain, Set of 10 5340-01-050-7059—Padlock, Laminated Case, 1-9/16″ Wide Brass, with Chain, Set of 5 5340-00-838-5267—Padlock, Laminated Case, 1.5″ Wide Brass, with Chain, Set of 20 5340-00-158-3807—Padlock, Laminated Case, 1.75″ Wide Steel, with Chain 5340-00-158-3805—Padlock, Laminated Case, 1.75″ Wide Steel, No Chain Mandatory for: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Distribution: B-List Services Service Type: Administrative Service Mandatory for: US Navy, NAVSUP, Global Logistics Support, Personal Property/Households Goods Program, 937 N. Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lighthouse for the Blind of Houston, Houston, TX Contracting Activity: NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center Service Type: Mail Management and Support Service Mandatory for: US Navy, NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk, Naval Support Activity, 5450 Carlisle Pike, Building 112, Mechanicsburg, PA, 700 Robbins Avenue, Building 27D, Philadelphia, PA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: NewView Oklahoma, Inc., Oklahoma City, OK Contracting Activity: US Navy, NAVSUP FLC Norfolk
    Deletions

    The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 508—Candle, Spring Scents Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, Corpus Christi, TX Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-01-543-7018—Trousers, ECWCS. Level 2, PCU, Army, Brown, M-L 8415-01-542-7642—Trousers, ECWCS. Level 2, PCU, Army, Brown, XS 8415-01-542-8534—Trousers, Lightweight Insulating, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, XL 8415-01-542-8538—Trousers, Lightweight Insulating, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, XXLL 8415-01-542-8540—Trousers, Lightweight Insulating, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, XXL 8415-01-542-8542—Trousers, ECWCS, Insulating Level 2, PCU, Army, Brown, S 8415-01-542-8546—Trousers, Lightweight Insulating, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, L 8415-01-542-8549—Trousers, Lightweight Insulating, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, L-L 8415-01-542-8552—Trousers, Lightweight Insulating, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, XL 8415-01-542-8553—Trousers, Lightweight Insulating, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, XL-L 8415-01-542-8555—Trousers, Lightweight Insulating, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, XXLL 8415-01-542-9612—Trousers, Lightweight Combat, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Brown, MR 8415-01-542-8545—Shirt, Lightweight, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Long Sleeved, Brown, XXLL 8415-01-542-9576—Shirt, Lightweight, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Long Sleeved, Brown, S 8415-01-542-9598—Shirt, Lightweight, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Long Sleeved, Brown, M 8415-01-542-9609—Shirt, Lightweight, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Long Sleeved, Brown, XL-L 8415-01-542-9613—Shirt, Lightweight, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Long Sleeved, Brown, XXXL 8415-01-542-9615—Shirt, Lightweight, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Long Sleeved, Brown, XXXLL 8415-01-542-9617—Shirt, Lightweight, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Long Sleeved, Brown, XXL 8415-01-543-7047—Shirt, Level 2, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Long Sleeved, Brown, M-L Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Southeastern Kentucky Rehabilitation Industries, Inc., Corbin, KY Contracting Activity: Army Contracting Command—Aberdeen Proving Ground, Natick Contracting Division NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8410-01-069-6611—Shirt, Dress, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeved, White, 32x13 Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Middle Georgia Diversified Industries, Inc., Dublin, GA Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-01-390-8537—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, XS/XS 8415-01-390-8538—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, XS/R 8415-01-390-8539—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, Small/Short 8415-01-390-8540—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, Small/X Long 8415-01-390-8541—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, Medium/X Short 8415-01-390-8542—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, Medium/XX Short 8415-01-390-8543—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, Small/Long 8415-01-390-8544—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, Medium/Regular 8415-01-390-8545—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, Small/Regular 8415-01-390-8546—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, X Small/Short 8415-01-390-8547—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, Medium/X Long 8415-01-390-8548—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, Medium/Short 8415-01-390-8549—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, Medium/Long 8415-01-390-8550—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, Large/Regular 8415-01-390-8551—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, Large/X Long 8415-01-390-8552—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, X Large/Long 8415-01-390-8553—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, Large/Long 8415-01-390-8555—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, XLR 8415-01-390-8557—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, LXS 8415-01-390-9641—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, XSS 8415-01-390-9646—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, XSXS 8415-01-390-9648—Coat, Combat Type VI, Army, Woodland Camouflage, LS Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: UNKNOWN Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 2320-01-398-7190—Combat Identification Kit, HMMWV TOW Platform, Brown Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Crossroads Rehabilitation Center, Inc., Indianapolis, IN Contracting Activity: W4GG HQ US Army TACOM, Warren, MI NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-00-NSH-0503—Shirt, Underwear, Collared, Chemical Protection, MPS, Army, 56 Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Peckham Vocational Industries, Inc., Lansing, MI Contracting Activity: W40M NORTHEREGION Contract Ofc, Fort Belvoir, VA Amy B. Jensen, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10901 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Addition and Deletion AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Addition to and deletion from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes a product from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agency.

    DATES:

    Effective June 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Addition

    On 12/23/2016 (81 FR 94340), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agency to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will provide the service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing a small entity to provide the service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:

    Service Service Type: Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM) Service Mandatory for: US Army, DPW (excluding Residential Housing Areas and including Forbes Air Field, Topeka, KS), Fort Riley, KS Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Skookum Educational Programs, Bremerton, WA Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE ARMY, W2V6 USA ENG SPT CTR HUNTSVILLE Deletion

    On 4/21/2017 (82 FR 18741-18742), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletion from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product listed below is no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing a small entity to furnish the product to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following product is deleted from the Procurement List:

    Product NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8540-00-266-9898—Paper, Doily Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Amy B. Jensen, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10902 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2017-OS-0012] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 26, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Application for Department of Defense Impact Aid for Children with Severe Disabilities; SD Form 816 and SD Form 816C; OMB Control Number 0704-0425.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement without change.

    Number of Respondents: 50.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 50.

    Average Burden per Response: 8 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 400 hours.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to authorize DoD funds for local educational agencies (LEAs) that educate military dependent students with severe disabilities that meet certain criteria. This application will be requested of military-impacted LEAs to determine if they meet the DoD criteria to receive compensation for the cost of educating military dependent students with severe disabilities.

    Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal governments.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected]. Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10806 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-19] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217 or Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-19 with attached Policy Justification.

    Dated: May 23, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN26MY17.008 Transmittal No. 17-19 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(l) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA)

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ 0 million Other $300 million TOTAL $300 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE): None

    Non-MDE:

    Follow-on support for three (3) C-17 aircraft to include participation in the Global Reach Improvement Program, contract labor for Class I modifications and kits, in-country contractor support, alternate mission equipment, major modification and retrofit, software support, aircraft maintenance and technical support, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, additional spare and repair parts, technical orders and publications, airworthiness certification support, engine logistics support, inspections, and other U.S. Government and contractor engineering, logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Air Force (X7-D-QAC)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: K8-D-QAG

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered. or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: None

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: April 27, 2017

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA)—Continuation of C-17 Logistics Support Services and Equipment

    The NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) has requested the possible sale of follow-on support for three (3) C-17 aircraft to include participation in the Global Reach Improvement Program, contract labor for Class I modifications and kits, in-country contractor support, alternate mission equipment, major modification and retrofit, software support, aircraft maintenance and technical support, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, additional spare and repair parts, technical orders and publications, airworthiness certification support, engine logistics support, inspections, and other U.S. Government and contractor engineering, logistics and program support. The total estimated program cost is $300 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States (U.S.) by providing sustainment for three (3) C-17s operated by a consortium of twelve nations, including the U.S. This program flies missions in and around Europe, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Levant, and North Africa. This proposed sale will provide a similar readiness level for these C-17s as U.S.-operated C-17s. The current FMS case supporting these C-17s will expire on 20 September 2017.

    The proposed sale will advance U.S. and NATO policy goals of expanding the capabilities of strategic airlift to NATO allies and partners and sustain the ability to deploy in support of contingency operations outside of Europe. As the C-17 is a support asset, it would not affect the basic military balance in the region. NSPA will have no difficulty absorbing this support.

    The prime contractor will be the Boeing Corporation of Chicago, Illinois. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the NATO Support and Procurement Agency.

    There will be no adverse impact to U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the NSPA.

    [FR Doc. 2017-10903 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-07] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217 or Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-07 with attached Policy Justification.

    Dated: May 9, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN26MY17.003 Transmittal No. 17-07 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Kenya

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $0 million Other $253 million Total $253 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE): None

    Non-MDE:

    Twelve (12) MD 530F Weaponized Aircraft

    Twenty-four (24) Heavy Machine Gun Pod (HMP) 400 Systems

    Twenty-four (24) M260 Rocket Launchers

    Four thousand and thirty-two (4,032) M151 Rockets

    One thousand five hundred and thirty-six (1,536) 2.75-inch M274 Smoke signature Warhead Rockets

    Four hundred thousand (400,000) rounds of .50 Caliber Ammunition

    Also included is communications and navigation equipment, contractor logistics support, training, U.S. Government technical assistance, airframe and weapon system spare parts support. Contractor Field Service Representative (CFSR) support, and Special Airlift Assignment Mission (SAAM) flight delivery support.

    (iv) Military Department: Army (UDQ)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services

    Proposed to be Sold: None

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: May 1, 2017

    *As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Kenya—MD 530 Aircraft

    The Government of Kenya has requested a possible sale of twelve (12) MD 530F weaponized aircraft to include twenty-four (24) Heavy Machine Gun Pod (HMP) 400 systems; twenty-four (24) M260 rocket launchers; four thousand and thirty-two (4,032) M151 rockets; one thousand five hundred and thirty-six (1,536) 2.75-inch M274 smoke signature warhead rockets; and four hundred thousand (400,000) rounds of .50 caliber ammunition. Also included are communications and navigation equipment, contractor logistics support, training, U.S. Government technical assistance, airframe and weapon system spare parts support, Contractor Field Service Representative (CFSR) support, and Special Assigned Airlift Mission (SAAM) flight delivery support. The total estimated cost is $253 million.

    This proposed sale contributes to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a strong regional partner who is a regional security leader, undertaking critical operations against al-Shabaab, and a troop contributor to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM).

    The proposed sale of the MD 530F helicopters, weapons, ammunition, support items and technical support will advance Kenya's efforts to conduct scout and attack rotary wing aircraft operations in support of their AMISOM mission. The MD 530F will also replace Kenya's aging MD500 fleet, which is the current reconnaissance platform supporting Kenyan ground forces. This sale will significantly enhance the Kenyan Army's modernization efforts and increase interoperability with the U.S. Armed Forces and other partners in the region. Additionally, a strong national defense and dedicated military force will assist Kenya in its efforts to maintain stability in East Africa.

    Kenya will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractor will be MD Helicopters, Mesa, AZ. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of approximately twelve (12) additional contractor representatives in country for a period of 12 months.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    [FR Doc. 2017-09640 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-14] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217 or Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-14 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: May 9, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN26MY17.001 Transmittal No. 17-14 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Slovakia

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ 0 million Other $150 million Total $150 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE): None

    Non-MDE: Nine (9) Bell 429 Light Utility Helicopters with customer-unique modifications. Also included are WESCAM MX-10 cameras, training, spare parts, and logistical support, mission equipment, communication and navigation equipment, special tools and test equipment, ground support equipment, airframe and engine spare parts, technical data, publications, maintenance work order/electronic change proposals, technical assistance, repair and return, quality assurance team, and transportation of aircraft.

    (iv) Military Department: Army

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: April 27, 2017

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Government of Slovakia—Bell 429 Light Utility Helicopters

    Slovakia has requested a possible sale of nine (9) Bell 429 Light Utility Helicopters with customer-unique modifications. Also included are WESCAM MX-10 cameras, training, spare parts, and logistical support, mission equipment, communication and navigation equipment, special tools and test equipment, ground support equipment, airframe and engine spare parts, technical data, publications, maintenance work order/electronic change proposals, technical assistance, repair and return, quality assurance team, and transportation of aircraft. The estimated cost is $150 million.

    This proposed sale will enhance the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO ally that has been, and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress within Europe.

    The proposed sale of the Bell 429 light utility helicopters will improve Slovakia's capability to meet current and future threats. Slovakia will use the enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense and deter regional threats. Slovakia will have no difficulty absorbing these helicopters into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractor will be Bell Helicopter of Piney Flats, Tennessee. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Slovakia.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 17-14 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The Bell 429 is a light twin, newly manufactured helicopter and is optimized for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), Category A, and JAROPS-3 compliant operations. The Bell 429 features two/three multi-function displays, dual digital 3-axis autopilot and an integrated electronic data recorder provides enhanced situational awareness and post flight analysis. The Bell 429 standard configuration for Communications, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS) consists of Garmin GTN 650/750 NAV/COM/WAAS GPS system. The Identifier, Friend or Foe (IFF) will be the APX-123, which provides the Mode 4/5 capability. One (1) each Multi Sensor Cameras, L3 WESCAM MX10s will be equipped on four (4) of the nine (9) Bell 429 Helicopters. The communications suite is as follows: one (1) each AN/ARC-231 Multi-mode radios providing VHF FM, VHF-AM, UHF, HQII and DAMA SATCOM. Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) will not be provided on this LOA.

    Identification and security classification of sensitive technological information and/or restricted information contained in the equipment, major components, subsystems, software, technical data (Performance, Maintenance, R&M, etc.) documentation, training devices and services to be conveyed with the proposed sale to include a brief justification/explanation of why information is sensitive provided as follows:

    (1) The AN/APX-123A, Identification Friend of Foe (IFF) Transponder, is a space diversity transponder and is installed on various military platforms. When installed in conjunction with platform antennas and the RCU (or other appropriate control unit), the transponder provides identification, altitude and surveillance reporting in response to interrogations from airborne, ground-based and/or surface interrogators. The transponder provides operational capabilities for Mark XIIA Identification Friend of Foe (IFF) capabilities of Modes 1, 2, 3/A,C and 4&5 and Mode S (levels 1, 2, and 3 capable). Additionally, the AN/APX-123 also provides automated ID, position and latitude of the aircraft, and unencrypted ADS-B and is compatible with the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) II equipment.

    (2) The WESCAM MX-10 is a small Multi-Sensor, Multi-Spectral Imaging System with Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) and Embedded with Global Positioning Systems (GPS) Standard Positioning Service (SPS). The WESCAM MX-10 camera system contains a LN-200 IMU manufactured by Northrop Grumman in the United States. WESCAM MX-10 is embedded with GPS SPS. SPS is a three-dimensional position and time determination capability provided to a user equipped with a minimum capability GPS SPS receiver in accordance with GPS national policy.

    (3) The AN/ARC-231 (V)(C) is a secure communication system that provides Line-of-Sight (LOS) communications and Beyond Line-of-Sight (BLOS) satellite communications (SATCOM), as well as Voice and data communications capabilities. In addition to Satellite Communications, the AN/ARC-231 (V)(C) provides Secure/Electronic Counter-Countermeasures (ECCM) communications in the following waveform, The Single Channel Ground and Airborne System (SINCGARS) and the HAVE QUICK (HQ). The AN/ARC-231 functions by transmitting and receiving the Radio Frequency (RF) in the 30 MHz-511.995 MHZ range. The Receiver Transmitter provides communication in Frequency Modulation (FM), Very High Frequency—Amplitude Modulation Air Traffic Control Band (VHF AM ATC), Very High Frequency—Frequency Modulation Public Service & Maritime Band, Ultra High Frequency—Amplitude Modulation (UHF AM) HAVEQUICK/Ground-Air Band, Ultra high Frequency Satellite (UHF SATFCOM) Band and Ultra High Frequency—Frequency Modulation Public Service Band.

    2. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government.

    3. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. Moreover, the benefits to be derived from this sale, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweighs the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.

    4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Slovak Republic.

    [FR Doc. 2017-09646 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-06] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217 or Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-06 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: May 23, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN26MY17.004 Transmittal No. 17-06 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)( l ) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA)

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $25.0 million Other $8.5 million Total $33.5 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    The NATO Support and Procurement Agency requested the sale of AN/AAQ-24(V) Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) components to support the upgrade of the LAIRCM system on three C-17 aircraft, along with spares.

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Fourteen (14) Guardian Laser Terminal Assemblies (GLTA) (9 + 5 spares)

    Six (6) LAIRCM System Processor Replacements (LSPR) (3 + 3 spares)

    Non-MDE:

    This request also includes contractor spares, consumables, support equipment, technical data, aircraft installation, flight test, certification, publications, training, program and logistics support services.

    (iv) Military Department: Air Force

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: K8-D-QAE

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered. or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: April 27, 2017

    *as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA)—Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) System Components

    The NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) requested the sale of fourteen (14) Guardian Laser Transmitter Assemblies (GLTA) and six (6) LAIRCM System Processor Replacements (LSPR) along with contractor spares, consumables, support equipment, technical data, aircraft installation, flight test, certification, publications and training in order to upgrade the AN/AAQ-24(V) LAIRCM system on three (3) of its C-17 aircraft. The estimated total value is $33.5 million.

    This proposed sale contributes to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by enhancing the aircraft self-protection capabilities of C-17 aircraft operated by the NATO Airlift Management (NAM) Programme, a consortium of 12 nations, including the United States. The partner nations in this program fly missions in and around Europe, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Levant, and North Africa. This sale an enhanced military capability for the NAM, and will assist its associated nations in providing airlift for personnel and equipment to locations requiring enhanced threat countermeasures.

    The proposed sale advances U.S. and NATO policy goals of expanding the capabilities of strategic airlift to NATO allies and partners. The capabilities associated with this proposed sale bolster the military strength of the NATO alliance and its partners by increasing the self-protection capabilities of NAM airlift aircraft. NSPA will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment.

    As these systems are defensive in nature, the proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The prime contractor for production is Northrup Grumman of Rolling Meadows, Illinois. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to NATO.

    There will be no adverse impact to U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 17-06 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)( l ) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The AN/AAQ-24V Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) is a self-contained, directed energy countermeasures system designed to protect aircraft from infrared-guided surface-to-air missiles. The system features digital technology and micro-miniature solid-state electronics. The system operates in all conditions, detecting incoming missiles and jamming infrared-seeker equipped missiles with aimed bursts of laser energy. The LAIRCM system components required to upgrade the system are the Guardian Laser Transmitter Assemblies (GLTA) and LAIRCM System Processor Replacement (LSPR). The upgraded LAIRCM for the C-17 uses three (3) GLTA and one (1) LSPR. LAIRCM system software, including Operational Flight Program is classified SECRET. Technical data and documentation to be provided are UNCLASSIFIED.

    a. The LSPR component analyzes the data from each Missile Warning System Sensor and automatically deploys the appropriate countermeasure via the GLTA.

    b. The GLTA uses aimed bursts of laser energy to jam infrared seeker equipped missiles when directed by the LSPR. The hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. The software is SECRET. Technical data and documentation to be provided are UNCLASSIFIED.

    2. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems which might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    3. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. Moreover, the benefits to be derived from this sale, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.

    4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the NATO Support and Procurement Agency, NATO Airlift Management Program pursuant to the NATO C-17 SAC MOU.

    [FR Doc. 2017-10898 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-11] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217 or Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-11 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: May 9, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN26MY17.000 Transmittal No. 17-11 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Australia

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $119.5 million Other $ 18.1 million Total $137.6 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Up to seventy (70) AGM-88B High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) Tactical Missiles Up to forty (40) AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missiles (AARGM) Tactical Missiles Up to sixteen (16) CATM-88B HARM Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM) Up to sixteen (16) CATM-88E AARGM CATM Up to twenty-five (25) AGM-88B Control Sections Up to twenty-five (25) AGM-88B Guidance Sections Up to twenty (20) AGM-88E Control Sections Up to twenty (20) AGM-88E Guidance Sections

    Non-MDE includes: Up to forty-eight (48) Telemetry/Flight Termination Systems, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other associated support equipment and services.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: AT-P-AZN

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Annex Attached.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: April 27, 2017

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Government of Australia- Anti-Radiation Missiles

    Australia has requested a possible sale of up to seventy (70) AGM-88B High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) Tactical Missiles; up to forty (40) AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missiles (AARGM) Tactical Missiles; up to sixteen (16) CATM-88B HARM Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM); up to sixteen (16) CATM-88E AARGM CATM; up to twenty-five (25) AGM-88B Control Sections; up to twenty-five (25) AGM-88B Guidance Sections; up to twenty (20) AGM-88E Control Sections; up to twenty (20) AGM-88E Guidance Sections; up to forty eight (48) Telemetry/Flight Termination Systems; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services; and other associated support equipment and services. The total estimated cost is $137.6 million.

    This sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a major contributor to political stability, security, and economic development in the Western Pacific. Australia is an important Major non-NATO Ally and partner that contributes significantly to peacekeeping and humanitarian operations around the world. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability.

    Australia is requesting these missiles for its Electronic Attack EA-18G Growler aircraft. The proposed sale will improve Australia's capability in current and future coalition efforts. Australia will use this capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. Australia will have no difficultly absorbing these additional missiles into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support does not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The prime contractors will be Orbital ATK (OA), Ridgecrest, CA, and Raytheon Missile Systems Company, Tucson, AZ. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to travel to Australia.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 17-11 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) weapon system is an air-to-ground missile intended to suppress or destroy land or sea-based radar emitters associated with enemy air defenses and provides tactical air forces with a lethal countermeasure to enemy radar directed, surface-to-air missiles, and air defense artillery weapons systems. Destruction or suppression of enemy radars denies the enemy the use of air defense systems, thereby improving the survivability of our tactical aircraft. It uses a multimode seeker that incorporates global positioning system/inertial measurement unit (GPS/IMU) midcourse guidance, a radio frequency (RF) radiation homing receiver, an active millimeter wave seeker, an Integrated Broadcast Service Receiver (IBS-R) and a Weapons Impact Assessment (WIA) transmitter. The AARGM AGM-88E when assembled is classified SECRET. The AARGM Guidance Section (seeker hardware) and Control Section with the Target Detector is classified CONFIDENTIAL.

    2. The AGM-88B High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) weapon system is an air-to-ground missile intended to suppress or destroy land or sea-based radar emitters associated with enemy air defenses and provides tactical air forces with a lethal countermeasure to enemy radar directed, surface-to-air missiles, and air defense artillery weapons systems. Destruction or suppression of enemy radars denies the enemy the use of air defense systems, thereby improving the survivability of our tactical aircraft. The AGM-88B HARM when assembled is classified CONFIDENTIAL. The HARM Guidance Section (seeker hardware), and Control Section with the Target Detector are classified CONFIDENTIAL.

    3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements of this possible sale, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    4. A determination has been made that the Government of Australia can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the technology being released as the US Government. The sale is necessary in furtherance of the US foreign policy and national security objectives as outlined in the Policy Justification of the notification.

    5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Australia.

    [FR Doc. 2017-09641 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-13] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217 or Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-13 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: May 9, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN26MY17.002 Transmittal No. 17-13 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: New Zealand

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $1.03 billion Other $ .43 billion Total $1.46 billion

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Four (4) P-8A Patrol Aircraft, which includes: Eight (8) Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS JTRS) (one (1) for each aircraft, two (2) for the ground operations support center, and two (2) spares) Five (5) Guardian Laser Transmitter Assemblies (GLTA) for the AN/AAQ-24(V)N Large Aircraft Infrared Counter Measures (LAIRCM) system (one (1) for each aircraft and one (1) spare) Five (5) System Processors for AN/AAQ-24(V)N LAIRCM system (one (1) for each aircraft and one (1) spare) Thirty (30) AN/AAR-54 Missile Warning Sensors for the AN/AAQ-24(V)N LAIRCM system (six (6) for each aircraft and six (6) spares) Ten (10) LN-251 with Embedded Global Positioning Systems (GPS)/Inertial Navigations Systems (EGIs) (two (2) for each aircraft and two (2) spares)

    Non-MDE includes:

    Commercial engines; Tactical Open Mission Software (TOMS); Electro-Optical (EO) and Infrared (IR) MX-20HD; AN/AAQ-2(V)1 Acoustic System; AN/APY-10 Radar; ALQ-240 Electronic Support Measures; support equipment; operation support systems; maintenance trainer/classrooms; publications; software, engineering, and logistics technical assistance; foreign Liaison officer support, contractor engineering technical services; repair and return; transportation; aircraft ferry; and other associated training, support equipment and services.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy (XX-P-SAH)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: This would be New Zealand's first purchase of the P-8A Patrol Aircraft. New Zealand has one related P-8A case, NZ-P-GEE, which provides P-8A study and technical analysis support.

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Annex Attached.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: April 27, 2017

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION New Zealand—P-8A Aircraft and Associated Support

    New Zealand has requested the potential sale of up to four (4) P-8A Patrol Aircraft. Each includes: commercial engines, Tactical Open Mission Software (TOMS), Electro-Optical (EO) and Infrared (IR) MX-20HD, AN/AAQ-2(V)1 Acoustic System, AN/APY-10 Radar, ALQ-240 Electronic Support Measures. Also included are eight (8) Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS JTRS); five (5) Guardian Laser Transmitter Assemblies (GLTA) for the AN/AAQ-24(V)N; five (5) System Processors for AN/AAQ-24(V)N; thirty (30) AN/AAR-54 Missile Warning Sensors for the AN/AAQ-24(V)N; ten (10) LN-251 with Embedded Global Positioning Systems (GPS)/Inertial Navigations Systems (EGIs); support equipment; operation support systems; maintenance trainer/classrooms; publications; software, engineering, and logistics technical assistance; foreign Liaison officer support, contractor engineering technical services; repair and return; transportation; aircraft ferry; and other associated training, support equipment and services. The total estimated cost is $1.46 billion.

    This proposed sale will enhance the foreign policy and national security of the United States by strengthening the security of a Major Non-NATO ally which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability within the region. New Zealand is a close ally in the region and an important partner on critical foreign policy and defense issues.

    The Government of New Zealand intends to use these defense articles and services to continue its Maritime Surveillance Aircraft (MSA) capability, following retirement of its P-3K maritime patrol aircraft. The sale will strengthen collective defense and enhance New Zealand's regional and global allied contributions.

    New Zealand has procured and operated U.S. produced P-3 MSA for over 40 years, providing critical capabilities to NATO and coalition maritime operations. New Zealand has maintained a close MSA acquisition and sustainment relationship with the U.S. Navy over this period. The proposed sale will allow New Zealand to recapitalize, modernize and sustain its MSA capability for the next 30 years. As a long-time P-3 operator, New Zealand will have no difficulty transitioning its MSA force to the P-8A and absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support does not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The prime contractor will be The Boeing Company, Seattle, WA. Additional contractors include:

    Air Cruisers Co LLC Arnprior Aerospace, Canada AVOX Zodiac Aerospace BAE Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC)/EMS Compass David Clark DLS/NiaSat, Carlsbad, CA DRS Exelis, McLean VA GC Micro, Petaluma, CA General Electric, UK Harris Joint Electronics Marin Baker Northrop Grumman Corp, Falls Church, VA Pole Zero, Cincinnati, OH Raytheon, Waltham, MA Raytheon, UK Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Spirit Aero, Wichita, KS Symmetries Telephonics, Farmingdale, NY Terma, Arlington, VA Viking WESCAM

    There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require approximately five (5) contractor representatives to support the program in New Zealand.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 17-13 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The P-8A aircraft is a militarized version of the Boeing 737-800 Next Generation (NG) commercial aircraft. The P-8A is replacing the P3C as the Navy's long-range Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW), Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft capable of broad-area, maritime and littoral operations. The overall highest classification of the P-8A weapon system is SECRET. The P-8A mission systems hardware is largely UNCLASSIFIED, while individual software elements (mission systems, acoustics, ESM, EWSP, etc.) are classified up to SECRET.

    2. P-8A mission systems include:

    a. Tactical Open Mission Software (TOMS). TOMS functions include environment planning, tactical aids, weapons planning aids, and data correlation. TOMS includes an algorithm for track fusion which automatically correlates tracks produced by on board and off board sensors.

    b. Electro-Optical (EO) and Infrared (IR) MX-20HD. The EO/IR system processes visible EO and IR spectrum to detect and image objects.

    c. AN/AAQ-2(V)1 Acoustic System. The Acoustic sensor system is integrated within the mission system as the primary sensor or the aircraft ASW missions. The system has multi-static active coherent (MAC) 64 sonobuoy processing capability and acoustic sensor prediction tools.

    d. AN/APY-10 Radar. The aircraft radar is a direct derivative of the legacy AN/APS-137(V) installed in the P-3C. The radar capabilities include GPS selective availability anti-spoofing, SAR and ISAR imagery resolutions, and periscope detection mode.

    e. ALQ-240 Electronic Support Measures (ESM). This system provides real time capability for the automatic detection, location, measurement, and analysis of RF-signals and modes. Real time results are compared with a library of known emitters to perform emitter classification and specific emitter identification (SEI).

    f. Electronic Warfare Self Protection (EWSP). The P-8A aircraft Directional Infrared Countermeasures (DIRCM) suite consists of the ALQ-213 Electronic Warfare Management System (EWMS), ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing System (CMDS), and the AN/AAQ-24(V)N Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasure (LAIRCM) Guardian Laser Transmitter Assemblies (GLTA) processor, and AAR-54 Missile Warning Sensors (MWS). The AN/AAQ-24(V)N LAIRCM is a self-contained, directed energy countermeasures system designed to protect aircraft from infrared guided surface-to-air missiles. The system features digital technology and micro-miniature sold state electronics. LAIRCM system software, including Operation Flight Program is classified SECRET. Technical data and documentation to be provided are UNCLASSIFIED.

    g. Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS JTRS) is an advanced Link-16 command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) system incorporating high-capacity, jam-resistant, digital communication links for exchange of near real-time tactical information, including both data and vice, among air, ground, and sea elements. The MIDS JTRS terminal hardware, publications, performance specifications, operational capability, parameters, vulnerabilities to countermeasures, and software documentation are classified CONFIDENTIAL. The classified information to be provided consists of that which is necessary for the operation, maintenance, and repair (through intermediate level) of the data link terminal, installed systems, and related software.

    3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain access of the P-8A specific hardware and software elements, systems could be reverse engineering to discover USN capabilities and tactics. The consequences of the loss of this technology, to a technologically advanced or competent adversary, could result in the development of countermeasures or equivalent systems, which could reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar advanced capabilities.

    4. A determination has been made that the recipient government can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to New Zealand.

    [FR Doc. 2017-09654 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Availability of a Final Feasibility Study With Integrated Environmental Impact Statement, Ala Wai Canal Project, Oahu, HI AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) announces the availability of a Public Review Final Feasibility Study with Integrated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), for the Ala Wai Canal Project, Oahu, Hawaii. The Final Feasibility Study/EIS evaluates alternatives to manage flood risk within the Ala Wai watershed, which includes the neighborhoods of Makiki, Manoa, Palolo, Kapahulu, Moiliili, McCully, and Waikiki. It also documents the existing condition of environmental resources in areas considered for locating flood risk management features and potential impacts on those resources that could result from implementing each alternative. The State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources is the non-Federal sponsor and the proposing agency for compliance with the Hawaii law on Environmental Impact Statements.

    DATES:

    All written comments must be postmarked on or before June 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted to the Ala Wai Canal Project, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District, ATTN: Derek Chow, Chief, Civil and Public Works Branch (CEPOH-PP-C), Building 230, Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440 or via email to [email protected] Oral and written comments may also be submitted at the public meeting described in the DATES section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Derek Chow, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District, 808-835-4026 or via email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    The document is available for review at the following locations:

    (1) Ala Wai Canal Project Web site: http://www.poh.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/CivilWorksProjects/AlaWaiCanal.aspx.

    (2) Kaimuki Public Library, 1041 Koko Head Avenue, Honolulu, HI 96816;

    (3) Waikiki-Kapahulu Public Library, 400 Kapahulu Avenue, Honolulu, HI 96815;

    (4) McCully-Moiliili Public Library, 2211 S. King Street, Honolulu, HI 96826;

    (5) Manoa Public Library, 2716 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822;

    Copies may also be requested in writing at (see ADDRESSES).

    Proposed Action. The proposed Ala Wai Canal Project, Oahu, Hawaii feasibility study is a single-purpose flood risk management project to reduce riverine flood risks to property and life safety in the Ala Wai Watershed. The Ala Wai Canal Watershed is located on the southeastern side of the island of Oahu, Hawaii. The watershed is 19 square miles and encompasses three sub-watersheds of Makiki, Manoa and Palolo Streams, which all drain into the Ala Wai Canal. The study area includes the most densely populated watershed in Hawaii with approximately 200,000 residents in the developed areas. In addition, Waikiki supports approximately 79,000 visitors on a daily basis.

    This study was authorized under Section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (Pub. L. 87-874), a general study authority that authorizes surveys in harbors and rivers in Hawaii “with a view to determining the advisability of improvements in the interest of navigation, flood control, hydroelectric power development, water supply, and other beneficial uses, and related land resources.”

    Alternatives. The Final Feasibility Study/EIS considers a full range of nonstructural and structural flood risk management alternatives that meet the proposed action's purpose and need and incorporate measures to avoid and minimize impacts to native aquatic species, stream habitat, and other resources. In response to identified flood-related problems and opportunities, a range of alternatives were evaluated through an iterative screening and formulation process, resulting in identification of a recommended plan.

    The recommended plan is the National Economic Development (NED) Plan and consists of the following components: Improvements to the flood warning system, 6 in-stream debris and detention basins in the upper reaches of the watershed, 1 stand-alone debris catchment feature, 3 multi-purpose detention basins in open space areas through the developed watershed, floodwalls along portions of the Ala Wai Canal, mitigation measures, and 2 associated pump stations to maintain internal drainage. Canal floodwalls would extend approximately 1.7 miles along the left (makai) bank and approximately 0.9 mile along the right (mauka) bank (including gaps for bridges).

    Public Involvement. As part of the current public involvement process, all affected Federal, State, and local agencies, Native Hawaiian organizations, private organizations, and the public are invited to review and comment on the Final Feasibility Study with Integrated EIS. Comments may also be submitted as described in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections.

    Other Environmental Review Requirements. To the extent practicable, NEPA and HRS Chapter 343 requirements will be coordinated in the preparation of the Final EIS.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10719 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy [Docket ID: USN-2017-HQ-0002] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Commander, Navy Installations Command, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Commander, Navy Installations Command announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Advisory Committee Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09B, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the following:

    Navy: Commander, Navy Installations Command, 716 Sicard St SE., ATTN: N3 Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Branch, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374.

    Marine Corps: Headquarters, Marine Corps, ATTN: Law Enforcement and Corrections Branch, Security Division, Plans, Policies and Operations (PP&O), 3000 Pentagon, Room 4A324, Washington, DC 20350-3000.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA); Department of the Navy Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Credential Application (LEOSA); OMB Control Number 0703-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: To verify eligibility of current DON Law enforcement officers for assigned duties and to determine if reassignment, reclassification, detail or other administrative action is warranted based on an officer's ability to obtain or maintain credential qualification requirements. To verify and validate eligibility of current, separating or separated and retired DON law enforcement officers to ship, transport, possess or receive Government-issued or private firearms or ammunition.

    To verify and validate eligibility of current, separating or separated, and retired DON law enforcement officers to receive DON endorsed law enforcement credentials, to include LEOSA credentials. The information is captured for administrative, mission support and law enforcement/legal use; if required. The information collected allows the Department of the Navy to effectively and efficiently process, validate, issue and track LEOSA applications and issuances.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 450.

    Number of Respondents: 900.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 900.

    Average Burden per Response: 0.50 hrs.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are retired or separated Department of the Navy Law Enforcement Officers who qualify for the credentials of the LEOSA program. The Department of the Navy Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) Credential Application form is used to collect, verify and validate qualifications of the applicant. If the application form is not submitted in conjunction with the appropriate documentation, the individuals reviewing the application cannot validate the qualifications of the applicant. This process is essential to ensuring only validated qualified law enforcement officials are issued the credentials.

    Dated: May 23, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10860 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.423A] Applications for New Awards; Supporting Effective Educator Development Program; Correction AGENCY:

    Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 20, 2017, we published in the Federal Register a notice inviting applications for new awards (NIA) for fiscal year (FY) 2017 for the Supporting Effective Educator Development program. On May 8, 2017, we published in the Federal Register a notice extending the deadlines for transmittal of applications and intergovernmental review.

    This notice of correction removes one of the selection criteria from the NIA and extends the deadlines for transmittal of applications and intergovernmental review. All other requirements and conditions stated in the notice inviting applications remain the same.

    DATES:

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 23, 2017.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 22, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Wilson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W111, Washington, DC 20202-5960. Telephone: (202) 453-6709, or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device (TDD) for the deaf or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On April 20, 2017, we published, in the Federal Register (82 FR 18619), a notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2017 for the SEED program. We are removing the fourth factor under the selection criterion for the Quality of the Management Plan. We are removing the fourth factor under the Quality of the Management Plan selection criterion because it was inadvertently duplicated. This factor is already listed under the Significance selection criterion and will remain under that criterion. With the removal of this factor, the Quality of Management Plan selection criterion will now have three factors by which it will be scored.

    Due to the changes to the selection criteria, we are extending the deadlines for transmittal of applications and intergovernmental review to June 23, 2017 and August 22, 2017, respectively. This will ensure applicants have sufficient time to respond to the changes in their applications.

    All other requirements and conditions stated in the NIA remain the same.

    Corrections

    In FR Doc. No. 2017-08042, in the Federal Register of April 20, 2017 (82 FR 18619), we make the following corrections:

    (a) On page 18619, in the middle column, under the heading “Deadline for Transmittal of Applications” remove the words “June 19, 2017” and replace them with the words “June 23, 2017”.

    (b) On page 18619, in the middle column, under the heading “Deadline for Intergovernmental Review,” remove the words “August 18, 2017” and replace them with the words “August 22, 2017”.

    (c) On page 18625, in the first column, under the heading “Deadline for Transmittal of Applications,” remove the words “June 19, 2017” and replace them with the words “June 23, 2017”.

    (d) On page 18625, in the middle column, under the heading “Deadline for Intergovernmental Review,” remove the words “August 18, 2017” and replace them with the words “August 22, 2017”.

    (e) On page 18628, in the first column, remove the words “(4) The extent to which the results of the proposed project are to be disseminated in ways that will enable others to use the information or strategies.”

    Program Authority: Section 2242 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (20 U.S.C. 6672).

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: May 23, 2017. Margo Anderson, Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10950 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0040] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2017-2019 AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2017-ICCD-0040. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 224-84, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact NCES Information Collections at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2017-2019.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0928.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 759,283.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 371,166.

    Abstract: The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), is a federally authorized survey of student achievement at grades 4, 8, and 12 in various subject areas, such as mathematics, reading, writing, science, U.S. history, civics, geography, economics, technology and engineering literacy (TEL), and the arts. The National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act (Pub. L. 107-279 Title III, section 303) requires the assessment to collect data on specified student groups and characteristics, including information organized by race/ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, disability, and limited English proficiency. It requires fair and accurate presentation of achievement data and permits the collection of background, noncognitive, or descriptive information that is related to academic achievement and aids in fair reporting of results. The intent of the law is to provide representative sample data on student achievement for the nation, the states, and subpopulations of students and to monitor progress over time. The nature of NAEP is that burden alternates from a relatively low burden in national-level administration years to a substantial burden increase in state-level administration years when the sample has to allow for estimates for individual states and some of the large urban districts. This submission requests OMB's approval for main NAEP assessments in 2018 and 2019, including operational, pilot, and special studies. The NAEP results will be reported to the public through the Nation's Report Card as well as other online NAEP tools.

    Dated: May 23, 2017. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10875 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0072] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Integrated Partner Management (IPM) System AGENCY:

    Department of Education (ED), Federal Student Aid (FSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2017-ICCD-0072. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 224-84, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Integrated Partner Management (IPM) System.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 9,220.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 7,890.

    Abstract: Federal Student Aid has developed the Integrated Partner Management (IPM) system. IPM is the new solution for application processing and financial reporting, that will replace 3 legacy applications. Consolidation of these applications will improve timeliness, data integrity and Department's analysts' ability to get a comprehensive view from one application as opposed to the current disjointed views across multiple applications. The new IPM system will include the application for approval for institutions and financial partners (including lenders) to participate in Federal Student Financial Aid programs. The IPM system will also allow institutions and financial partners participating in the Title IV HEA programs to submit the required audited financial statements and compliance audits. IPM includes significant advances to both partners and FSA analysts in the process used for providing oversight to FSA partners in the Title IV and improvements in the tools and technologies currently in place. IPM will transition a process that is currently heavily paper based to an easy to navigate, automated work-flow process. Under the IPM system the institutions log into a secure Department Web site, enter information pertaining to their eligibility, audit and finances and attach electronic documents to support eligibility, audit and financial statement submissions.

    Dated: May 23, 2017. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10876 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting and request for comment on the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee (NEAC) International Subcommittee Report.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee and request for comments. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Tuesday June 20, 2017; 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Renaissance Washington DC Hotel, 999 Ninth St. NW., Washington, DC 20001.

    Request for Comment on the NEAC International Subcommittee Report. The draft report is posted on NEAC's Web site: https://energy.gov/ne/services/nuclear-energy-advisory-committee and comments on the report can be sent via email to: [email protected]. All comments are due by June 2, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bob Rova, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Rd. Germantown, MD 20874; telephone: (301) 903-9096; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee (NEAC), formerly the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC), was established in 1998 by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to provide advice on complex scientific, technical, and policy issues that arise in the planning, managing, and implementation of DOE's civilian nuclear energy research programs. The committee is composed of 17 individuals of diverse backgrounds selected for their technical expertise and experience, established records of distinguished professional service, and their knowledge of issues that pertain to nuclear energy.

    Purpose of the Meeting: To inform the committee of recent developments and current status of research programs and projects pursued by the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy and receive advice and comments in return from the committee.

    Tentative Agenda: The meeting is expected to include presentations that provide the committee updates on activities for the Office of Nuclear Energy. In addition, there will be presentations by Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee subcommittees and a discussion/vote on the committee's acceptance of the International Subcommittee report. The agenda may change to accommodate committee business. For updates, one is directed to the NEAC Web site: http://energy.gov/ne/services/nuclear-energy-advisory-committee.

    Public Participation: Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions may do so on the day of the meeting, Tuesday, June 20, 2017. Approximately thirty minutes will be reserved for public comments. Time allotted per speaker will depend on the number who wish to speak, but is not expected to exceed 5 minutes. Anyone who is not able to make the meeting or has had insufficient time to address the committee is invited to send a written statement to Bob Rova, U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, or email: [email protected].

    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available by contacting Mr. Rova at the address above or on the Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy's Web site at: http://energy.gov/ne/services/nuclear-energy-advisory-committee.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19, 2017. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10877 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [Case No. CR-006] Notice of Petition for Waiver of AHT Cooling Systems GmbH and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc. From the Department of Energy Commercial Refrigerator, Freezer, and Refrigerator-Freezer Test Procedures and Partial Granting of an Interim Waiver AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition for waiver, partial grant of an interim waiver, and request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver from AHT Cooling Systems GmbH and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc. (AHT) seeking an exemption from specified portions of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test procedure for determining the energy consumption of commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers (collectively “commercial refrigeration equipment”) under the regulations. AHT seeks to use an alternate test procedure to address issues involved in testing forty-eight basic models identified by AHT as part of its petition that do not have a typical defrosting cycle (i.e., the cooling coils are built into the body of the units and require defrosting once or twice per week). Consequently, AHT seeks to test and rate these basic models as ice cream freezers only and to use an alternate two-part test procedure to account for the infrequent defrosts. This notice also announces that DOE is declining to grant AHT an interim waiver regarding multi-mode operation, but DOE is granting an interim waiver to address the defrost cycles, with modifications to AHT's requested approach. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning AHT's petition and its suggested alternate test procedure to inform its final decision.

    DATES:

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information with regard to the AHT petition until June 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Case Number CR-006, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected] Include the case number [Case No. CR-006] in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.

    Postal Mail: Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, Petition for Waiver Case No. CR-006, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-6636. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email: [email protected]

    Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background and Authority

    Title III, Part C 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6316, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which includes commercial refrigeration equipment.2 Part C includes definitions, energy conservation standards, test procedures, labeling provisions, and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. Further, Part C authorizes the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs during a representative average-use cycle, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) The test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B, “Amended Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Energy Consumption of Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers.

    1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated as Part A-1.

    2 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 (EEIA), Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015).

    DOE's regulations set forth at 10 CFR 431.401 contain provisions that allow a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model of a type of covered equipment when the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that either (1) prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedures; or (2) cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1). A petitioner must include in its petition various information, including a detailed discussion of the need for the requested waiver and any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. See 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1).

    DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of such waiver. As soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a final rule. 10 CFR 431.401(l).

    The waiver process also allows DOE to grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the Federal Register a determination on the petition for waiver; or (ii) publish in the Federal Register a new or amended test procedure that addresses the issues presented in the waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(h)(1). When DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in a waiver, the waiver will automatically terminate on the date on which use of that test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance. 10 CFR 431.401(h)(2).

    II. AHT's Petition for Waiver of Test Procedure and Application for Interim Waiver

    On October 25, 2016, AHT filed a petition for waiver and interim waiver from the DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment set forth in 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B. (AHT, No. 0001 at pp. 1-10 3 ) AHT petitioned for waiver for six model lines 4 that are capable of multi-mode operation (i.e., as ice cream freezer and commercial refrigerator) and that do not have typical defrosting cycles (i.e., the cooling coils are built into the body of the units and require defrosts once per week). In the petition, AHT states that the DOE test procedure is not clear regarding how to test multi-mode equipment. Additionally, AHT states that the test procedure's 24-hour test period starting with a defrost would grossly overstate the energy used by these models due to their longer defrost cycles (once per week).

    3 A notation in this form provides a reference for information that is in the docket for this test procedure waiver (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0027) (available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0027). This notation indicates that the statement preceding the reference is document number 1 in the docket and appears at pages 1-10 of that document.

    4 The specific basic models for which the petition applies are ice cream freezer and commercial refrigerator basic models IBIZA 100 NAM-R, IBIZA 100 NAM-IC, IBIZA 145 NAM-R, IBIZA 145 NAM-IC, IBIZA 210 NAM-R, IBIZA 210 NAM-IC, MALTA 145 NAM-R, MALTA 145 NAM-IC, MALTA 185 NAM-R, MALTA 185 NAM-IC, MANHATTAN 175 NAM-R, MANHATTAN 175 NAM-IC, MANHATTAN 210 NAM-R, MANHATTAN 210 NAM-IC, MIAMI 145 NAM-R, MIAMI 145 NAM-IC, MIAMI 185 NAM-R, MIAMI 185 NAM-IC, MIAMI 210 NAM-R, MIAMI 210 NAM-IC, MIAMI 250 NAM-R, MIAMI 250 NAM-IC, PARIS 145 NAM-R, PARIS 145 NAM-IC, PARIS 185 NAM-R, PARIS 185 NAM-IC, PARIS 210 NAM-R, PARIS 210 NAM-IC, PARIS 250 NAM-R, PARIS 250 NAM-IC, SYDNEY 175 NAM-R, SYDNEY 175 NAM-IC, SYDNEY 210 NAM-R, SYDNEY 210 NAM-IC, SYDNEY 213 NAM-R, SYDNEY 213 NAM-IC, SYDNEY 223 NAM-R, SYDNEY 223 NAM-IC, SYDNEY 230 NAM-R, SYDNEY 230 NAM-IC, SYDNEY 250 NAM-R, SYDNEY 250 NAM-IC, SYDNEY XL 175 NAM-R, SYDNEY XL 175 NAM-IC, SYDNEY XL 210 NAM-R, SYDNEY XL 210 NAM-IC, SYDNEY XL 250 NAM-R, and SYDNEY XL 250 NAM-IC. These basic model names were provided by AHT in April 2016 as a supplement to its petition. (AHT, No. 0003; https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0027-0003.)

    Notably, in addition to the above listed ice cream freezer and commercial refrigerator basic models, AHT's petition for waiver and interim waiver previously included commercial freezer basic models IBIZA 100 NAM-F, IBIZA 145 NAM-F, IBIZA 210 NAM-F, MALTA 145 NAM-F, MALTA 185 NAM-F, MANHATTAN 175 NAM-F, MANHATTAN 210 NAM-F, MIAMI 145 NAM-F, MIAMI 185 NAM-F, MIAMI 210 NAM-F, MIAMI 250 NAM-F, PARIS 145 NAM-F, PARIS 185 NAM-F, PARIS 210 NAM-F, PARIS 250 NAM-F, SYDNEY 175 NAM-F, SYDNEY 210 NAM-F, SYDNEY 213 NAM-F, SYDNEY 223 NAM-F, SYDNEY 230 NAM-F, SYDNEY 250 NAM-F, SYDNEY XL 175 NAM-F, SYDNEY XL 210 NAM-F, and SYDNEY XL 250 NAM-F. (AHT, No. 0003; https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0027-0003) However, on May 2, 2017, DOE received a letter from AHT that withdrew these commercial freezer basic models from its petition for waiver and interim waiver request. AHT indicated that it plans to submit a separate waiver request for these basic models at a later date. (AHT, No. 0007 at pp. 1; https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0027-0007) Thus, these commercial freezer basic models were not considered as a part of this Notice.

    To address multi-mode operation, AHT requests that their equipment be tested and rated only as ice cream freezers (with integrated average temperature of −15 °F +/− 2.0 °F and use of total display area (TDA) to determine associated energy conservation standards).

    To address infrequent defrosts, AHT requests that their equipment be subject to an alternate two-part test procedure. The first part would be a 24-hour test starting in steady state conditions and including eight hours of door opening (according ASHRAE Standard 72). The energy consumed in this test would be recorded as ET1. The second part would be a defrost cycle test starting after steady state conditions are established and ending after the defrost cycle is complete. The duration of the defrost cycle, tDI, and the energy consumed during this defrost cycle, ET2, would be recorded and combined with ET1 based on the once-per-week defrost frequency. In AHT's March 6, 2017 letter, AHT noted that although the standard duration of the defrost cycle was once-per-week, the basic models have an optional manual override that allows up to two defrost cycles per week and recommended revising the October 25 test procedure to reflect that. (AHT, No. 00085 ) DOE considered this proposal in developing the alternative test procedure.

    5https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0027-0008.

    III. Alternate Test Procedure

    EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 6314(d)) Consistent representations about the energy efficiency of covered equipment are important for consumers to evaluate equipment when making purchasing decisions and for manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards.

    AHT proposes testing the commercial refrigeration equipment at issue in their petition according to the following alternate test procedure.

    The equipment would be tested and rated as ice cream freezers (with integrated average temperature of −15 °F +/− 2.0 °F).

    The equipment would be subject to the following testing instead of the corresponding defrost testing in the test procedure. The first part would be a 24-hour test starting in steady state conditions and including eight hours of door opening (according ASHRAE Standard 72). The energy consumed in this test would be recorded as ET1.

    The second part would be a defrost cycle test starting after steady state conditions are established. The defrost cycle would be initiated and the second part of testing would terminate after the defrost cycle is complete. The energy consumed during this defrost cycle, ET2, and the duration of the defrost cycle, tDI, would be recorded.

    Based on the measured energy consumption in these two tests, the daily energy consumption (DEC), in kilowatt-hours (kWh), would be calculated as:

    EN26MY17.005 Where: DEC = Daily Energy Consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh); ET1 = energy expended during the first part of the test, in kWh; ET2 = energy expended during the second part of the test, in kWh; E td = energy expended by defrosts per week t NDI = normalized length of defrosting time per day, in minutes; t DS = sum of defrost time per week; D = maximum number of defrosts per week 7 = conversion factor of days per week; 1440 = conversion factor to adjust to a 24-hour period in minutes per day.6

    6 DOE notes that AHT's proposed test procedure included a scrivener's error. That error has been corrected to reflect AHT's intended proposal.

    As stated in the Summary above, DOE is declining to grant an interim waiver to AHT regarding the multi-mode operation issue, and is granting an interim waiver to address the defrost issue with modifications to AHT's proposed approach. AHT is required to test the basic models according to each of the equipment class definitions that it meets, and must do so according to the test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment prescribed by DOE as specified in section V of this document. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 431.401, and after consideration of public comments on the petition, DOE will consider whether to set an alternate test procedure for the equipment identified by AHT. DOE will provide that decision in a subsequent Decision and Order.

    IV. Summary of Declining To Grant an Interim Waiver: Multi-Mode Operation

    AHT first is seeking a waiver for commercial refrigeration equipment that have multi-mode operation. DOE understands, on the basis of AHT's petition, that the equipment at issue have single compartments; in other words, the equipment are not “commercial hybrids” under the definition at 10 CFR 431.62. The applicable regulations define a “commercial freezer” as a unit that, among other criteria, is “capable of operating below 32 °F.” 10 CFR 431.62. An “ice-cream freezer” is a commercial freezer “that is designed to operate at or below −5 °F” and is meant for “storing, displaying, or dispensing . . . ice cream.” Id. A “commercial refrigerator” is a unit that, among other criteria, is “capable of operating at or above 32 °F.” Id.

    With respect to multi-mode operation, DOE has taken the position in the most recent commercial refrigeration equipment test procedure final rule, that self-contained equipment or remote condensing equipment with thermostats capable of operating at temperatures that span multiple equipment categories must be certified and comply with DOE's regulations for each applicable equipment category. 79 FR 22291 (April 21, 2014).

    In light of the 2014 final rule, DOE declines at this time to provide AHT an interim waiver allowing testing only in the ice cream freezer mode. Additionally, DOE notes that DOE's current regulations allow for the use of alternative efficiency determination methods (AEDMs), which allow manufacturers to simulate the energy use of untested basic models once a manufacturer has a validated AEDM and could be used to simulate results at other rating temperatures. 10 CFR 429.70.

    V. Summary of Granting an Interim Waiver: Long Defrost Cycles

    Regarding the second issue of infrequent defrosts, DOE understands that defrosts are highly dependent upon the as-installed conditions of the commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE has adopted the industry procedure that accounts for the energy consumption associated with a defrost cycle by requiring a defrost at the start of the test period. Under the current applicable test procedure, all manufacturers test at “typical” conditions and allow commercial customers to compare performance of competing units in the marketplace at such conditions.

    DOE agrees that the test protocol that AHT proposes may better reflect energy consumption on the equipment identified in the petition for waiver. As AHT stated in the petition for waiver, the test procedure requires beginning the test period at the start of a defrost cycle and recording data for 24 hours. Based on AHT's petition and additional supporting information, DOE understands that these model lines are not capable of defrosting once every 24 hours as simulated by the DOE test procedure. Instead, AHT identified model lines that use a control strategy that requires a single defrost once per week and allows the commercial customer to initiate an additional defrost each week, as needed. Accordingly, DOE is granting an interim waiver to AHT on this issue, but with modifications to AHT's requested approach as described below.7

    7 This interim waiver does not apply to the commercial freezer models that were previously listed in AHT's petition and subsequently withdrawn by AHT on May 2, 2017. For those models, AHT must test in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B.

    The two-part test method outlined in AHT's petition for waiver is an appropriate method to account for defrost energy consumption when the defrost interval is known. The DOE test procedures for consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers include a similar method. AHT indicated in its petition for waiver that the controls for these basic models initiate a defrost once per week and indicated that the controls for the equipment allow for user-initiated defrosts as often as twice per week. DOE assumes that users would likely use this feature to minimize frost build up, and, therefore, DOE has accounted for two defrosts per week in the energy use equation in the interim waiver. DOE notes that if AHT were to change the defrost control schemes for this equipment, then they would be new basic models to which this interim waiver does not apply.

    In order for AHT to appropriately select the test period for the defrost portion of the test, DOE added specific provisions to clarify that test period to AHT's proposed alternative test procedure. For example, capturing only the defrost occurrence may omit other aspects of the defrost cycle that would impact energy performance, such as the temperature recovery period immediately following the defrost cycle. To better reflect unit operation during a defrost, DOE is clarifying that the defrost test period include any complete compressor cycles immediately before or after the defrost and temperature recovery compressor cycle with cabinet temperatures that are not within 0.5°F of the average cabinet temperature measured during the first test with stable operation. DOE references the consumer refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix A to incorporate this requirement into the interim waiver.

    Therefore, DOE has issued an Order, stating:

    After careful consideration of all the material submitted by AHT in this matter, DOE grants an interim waiver regarding the specified basic models. Accordingly, it is ordered that:

    (1) AHT must, going forward, test and rate the following AHT basic models as set forth in paragraph (2) below:

    IBIZA 100 NAM-R, IBIZA 100 NAM-IC, IBIZA 145 NAM-R, IBIZA 145 NAM-IC, IBIZA 210 NAM-R, IBIZA 210 NAM-IC, MALTA 145 NAM-R, MALTA 145 NAM-IC, MALTA 185 NAM-R, MALTA 185 NAM-IC, MANHATTAN 175 NAM-R, MANHATTAN 175 NAM-IC, MANHATTAN 210 NAM-R, MANHATTAN 210 NAM-IC, MIAMI 145 NAM-R, MIAMI 145 NAM-IC, MIAMI 185 NAM-R, MIAMI 185 NAM-IC, MIAMI 210 NAM-R, MIAMI 210 NAM-IC, MIAMI 250 NAM-R, MIAMI 250 NAM-IC, PARIS 145 NAM-R, PARIS 145 NAM-IC, PARIS 185 NAM-R, PARIS 185 NAM-IC, PARIS 210 NAM-R, PARIS 210 NAM-IC, PARIS 250 NAM-R, PARIS 250 NAM-IC, SYDNEY 175 NAM-R, SYDNEY 175 NAM-IC, SYDNEY 210 NAM-R, SYDNEY 210 NAM-IC, SYDNEY 213 NAM-R, SYDNEY 213 NAM-IC, SYDNEY 223 NAM-R, SYDNEY 223 NAM-IC, SYDNEY 230 NAM-R, SYDNEY 230 NAM-IC, SYDNEY 250 NAM-R, SYDNEY 250 NAM-IC, SYDNEY XL 175 NAM-R, SYDNEY XL 175 NAM-IC, SYDNEY XL 210 NAM-R, SYDNEY XL 210 NAM-IC, SYDNEY XL 250 NAM-R, and SYDNEY XL 250 NAM-IC.

    (2) The applicable method of test for the AHT basic models listed in paragraph (1) is the test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B, except that the test period shall be selected as follows.

    The first part of the test shall be a 24-hour test starting in steady-state conditions and including eight hours of door opening (according to ASHRAE Standard 72). The energy consumed in this test, ET1, shall be recorded.

    The second part of the test shall be a defrost cycle, including any operation associated with a defrost. The start and end points of the defrost cycle test period shall be determined according to the instructions for consumer refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers outlined in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A, section 4.2.1.1 (for cycling compressor systems) or section 4.2.1.2 (for non-cycling compressor systems). The energy consumed in this test, ET2, and duration, tDI, shall be recorded.

    Based on the measured energy consumption in these two tests, the daily energy consumption (DEC) in kWh shall be calculated as:

    EN26MY17.006 Where: DEC = daily energy consumption, in kWh; ET1 = energy consumed during the first part of the test, in kWh; ET2 = energy consumed during the second part of the test, in kWh; t NDI = normalized length of defrosting time per day, in minutes; t DI = length of time of defrosting test period, in minutes; 3.5 = time between defrost occurrences, in days; and 1440 = conversion factor, minutes per day.

    (3) Representations. AHT must make representations about the energy use of the equipment identified in paragraph (1) for compliance, marketing, or other purposes only to the extent that such equipment have been tested in accordance with the provisions set forth above and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing in accordance with 10 CFR part 429, subpart B.

    (4) This interim waiver shall remain in effect consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401.

    (5) This interim waiver is issued on the condition that the statements, representations, and documentary materials provided by the petitioner are valid. If AHT makes any modifications to the defrost controls of these basic models, the waiver would no longer be valid and AHT would either be required use the current Federal test method or submit a new application for a test procedure waiver. DOE may revoke or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics.

    (6) Granting of this interim waiver does not release AHT from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.

    Because DOE has found it likely that AHT's waiver petition will be granted, with modifications as described earlier in this section, DOE is granting an interim waiver to address the defrost cycles of the relevant basic models. DOE is now seeking comment from interested stakeholders on whether either the interim waiver approach or AHT's proposed test is likely to be representative of the energy use of the basic models that are the subjects of the waiver petition, or whether another alternative test may be more appropriate.

    VI. Summary and Request for Comments

    Through this notice, DOE announces receipt of AHT's petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure for certain basic models of AHT commercial refrigeration equipment and announces DOE's decision to partially grant AHT's request for an interim waiver. DOE is publishing AHT's petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iv). The petition contains no confidential information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure, as specified in section III of this notice, to determine the energy consumption of AHT's specified basic models of commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE may consider including this alternate procedure in a subsequent Decision and Order based on comments from interested parties. However, DOE is granting a partial interim waiver using a modified test approach as described in section V of this notice. DOE is denying the portion of AHT's request regarding the multi-mode operation.

    DOE solicits comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition, including the suggested alternate test procedure and calculation methodology. Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is Scott Blake Harris, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP, 1919 M Street NW., Eighth Floor, Washington, DC 20036. All comment submissions must include the agency name and Case Number CR-006 for this proceeding. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Portable Document Format (PDF), or text (American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII)) file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Wherever possible, include the electronic signature of the author. DOE does not accept telefacsimiles (faxes).

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies to DOE: One copy of the document marked “confidential” with all of the information believed to be confidential included, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with all of the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 18, 2017. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON, DC 20585

    In the Matter of: Energy Efficiency Program: Test Procedure for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

    Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0025;

    RIN 1904-AC99.

    I. PETITION OF AHT COOLING SYSTEMS FOR WAIVER OF TEST PROCEDURE FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT

    AHT Cooling Systems GmbH and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc. (collectively AHT) 1 respectfully submit this Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver 2 from DOE's test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment.3

    1 AHT's U.S. subsidiary is AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc., 3235 Industry Drive, North Charleston, South Carolina 29418 (tel. 843-767-6855). AHT's worldwide headquarters are AHT Cooling Systems GmbH, Werkgasse 57, 8786 Rottenmann, Austria (tel. 011-43-3614/2451-0).

    2See 10 CFR 431.401 (petitions for waiver and interim waiver).

    3Id. Part 431, Subpart C, Appendix B.

    AHT is a world leader in the production of plug-in refrigerators and freezers for the commercial sector. It currently manufactures its products in Austria, and imports them into the United States through its wholly-owned subsidiary in South Carolina. AHT USA is also about to open a new manufacturing facility in the Charleston area. AHT products are distributed to major supermarket retail chains, convenience stores, wholesalers, and consumer-packaged goods companies throughout the United States and Canada. AHT's pursuit of innovation has led it continuously to develop and market cutting-edge technology. Its philosophy focuses on sustainability, energy efficiency, innovation, and customer benefit. AHT's products, as is reflected by their use of propane as a refrigerant, are among the most energy efficient and environmentally friendly in the world.

    Commercial refrigeration equipment, such as AHT's, will soon be subject to a new regulatory regime. This includes new test procedures 4 and efficiency standards.5 The new procedures will apply to representations of energy efficiency or use made on and after March 28, 2017. The new standards will apply to products manufactured on or after March 27, 2017.

    4Id. Part 431, Subpart C, Appendix B, as adopted, 79 FR 22277 (April 21, 2014).

    5Id. § 431.66, as adopted, 79 FR 17725 (March 28, 2014).

    In part because of their advanced design and features, many AHT commercial refrigerators and freezers cannot be fairly evaluated by DOE's mandated testing protocols. First, because of their implicit assumptions, it is not clear which of the DOE tests should be applied to the AHT appliances. Second, any of the DOE tests would overstate the amount of energy used by the AHT appliances. Accordingly, a waiver of those test requirements is necessary.

    I. BASIC MODELS FOR WHICH A WAIVER IS REQUESTED

    The basic models for which a waiver is requested are set forth in Appendix I. These models are all display merchandisers with transparent doors. They are distributed in commerce under the AHT brand name.

    II. NEED FOR THE REQUESTED WAIVER

    As noted, the DOE test procedures will take effect on March 28, 2017. It is not clear which DOE test procedure should apply to AHT's advanced models, and all would grossly overstate the energy used by these models. There are two critical features of the AHT models that raise issues under the forthcoming testing procedure.

    A. The AHT Appliances Are Multi-Mode.

    The AHT appliances for which we seek a waiver are all multi-mode models; they have three modes of operation among which the user can choose merely by turning a switch. In one mode, the units operate as an ice cream freezer. In another mode, they operate as a regular commercial freezer. In yet another mode, they operate as a commercial refrigerator. The advantage to a user of having a single appliance that can operate in three different modes is obvious. And if a retail operator can purchase one appliance that can operate in three modes, rather than having to buy multiple appliances to meet the same needs, there are sustainability benefits as well. The problem is that the DOE rules implicitly assume that an appliance is exclusively an ice cream freezer, exclusively a standard commercial freezer, or exclusively a commercial refrigerator.6 And the DOE rules mandate different testing protocols for an ice cream freezer than they do for a standard commercial freezer or a commercial refrigerator.

    6Id. § 431.66.

    DOE testing rules often require that products be tested in their default configuration, or in the typical configuration. In the case of the AHT multi-mode appliances however, there isn't a “default” configuration or one “typical” configuration. The machines are designed to be easily and equally usable in all three modes. DOE precedent also suggests that when there is no default or typical mode for testing purposes, products with multiple configurations should be tested in the most energy consumptive mode. In this case, that would mean that AHT should test its products in the ice cream freezer mode and treat them as such for regulatory purposes.

    Accordingly, AHT asks for a “waiver” to be allowed to do precisely that.

    The only obvious alternative to testing in the most energy consumptive mode would be to require testing in all three modes. But such a requirement would be unique, burdensome, and inconsistent with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which requires that the test procedures “shall be reasonably designed” and “shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct.” 7 Moreover, in this situation it is not clear how one would evaluate whether an appliance passed a multiple test regime, particularly since testing the appliances as ice cream freezers would require using total display area (TDA) as the normalizing metric, while testing them in the other modes would require using volume as a normalizing metric. Such a testing regime would be both confusing and burdensome.

    7 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3).

    Finally, testing these appliances as ice cream freezers makes most sense because DOE has determined that TDA is the best metric for display equipment with transparent doors, and is moving increasingly in that direction in its testing protocols. As DOE has concluded, “where the function is to display merchandise for sale, TDA best quantifies the ability of a piece of equipment to perform that function.” 8 That is surely true here.

    8 79 FR 17725, 17741 (March 28, 2014).

    B. The AHT Appliances Do Not Have a Typical Defrosting Cycle.

    The AHT appliances are innovative, and perhaps unique, in one other respect: Their cooling coils are built into the body of the units. This means the cooling coils are not exposed to the air and do not get covered with frost. This also means the coils do not need to be defrosted. The DOE test procedure understandably assumes that commercial refrigerators and freezers have cooling or evaporator coils that need to be defrosted for the equipment to function effectively. Indeed, the Technical Support Document for the test procedure essentially defines “defrosting” to mean melting ice from evaporator coils:

    As the air in the refrigerated space is cooled, water vapor condenses on the surface of the evaporator coil. . . . There are several methods available for defrosting the evaporator coil . . .9

    9 DOE, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment; Commercial Refrigeration Equipment (Feb. 2014), § 3.3.1.11 (Defrost Cycle; Defrost Mechanism).

    In addition, the ASHRAE test procedure mandated by the DOE regulations provides that the defrost adequacy assurance test “shall verify that any defrost setting and arrangement is adequate to melt all frost and ice from coils and flues and drain it out of the refrigerator.” 10 Based on the assumption that all refrigerators and freezers that have evaporator coils from which frost must be melted regularly in order to function, the test procedure calls for starting testing with a full defrost cycle, and may require additional defrost cycles in a 24-hour period before the test is complete (depending on the expected operation of the model).

    10 ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, “Method of Testing Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,” § 7.8 (Defrost Adequacy Assurance). ASHRAE 72-2005 is incorporated by reference in the DOE test procedure. 10 CFR 431.63(d)(1).

    AHT appliances, however, have no need to defrost their coils. Rather, small amounts of frost can build up on the inner walls of the cabinet when the appliances are in a freezer mode. But this is a strictly esthetic matter that is easily resolved. Thus, rather than running one or more defrosting cycles a day to keep the machines operating efficiently, AHT appliances have a defrost (in the generic sense rather than as defined by DOE/ASHRAE) function that operates just once per week to keep the machines looking good.11 As a result, the test procedure, which provides for at least one full defrost cycle in a 24-hour period is not appropriate for these models. It would overstate the energy usage from the defrosting function by at least a factor of seven.

    11 We also note that AHT appliances have a manual override, such that a user could activate the defrost cycle a second time in any one week period. But the default automatic setting, and we expect the typical use, is one defrost cycle per week.

    Accordingly, AHT asks for a waiver to test its appliances with the defrost cycle activated in a way that reflects the actual operation of the units. To this end, AHT proposes to test the appliances in two phases. Phase one shall be a 24-hour test according to ASHRAE 72 including eight hours of door openings but without defrost. The second phase should be a separate measurement of the energy used during the defrost cycle. One-seventh of the measured energy in phase two should be added to the energy measured in phase one. This approach would translate the once-a-week defrost cycle into an average daily energy usage factor.

    III. PROPOSED ALTERNATE TEST PROCEDURE

    In line with the waivers outlined above, AHT proposes the following alternate test procedure to evaluate the performance of the basic models listed in Appendix I of this petition and application.

    Effective March 28, 2017, AHT shall be required to test the performance of the basic models listed in Appendix I according to the test procedures for commercial refrigeration equipment prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR Part 431, Subpart C, Appendix B, except as follows.

    The basic models shall be tested and rated as ice cream freezers (Integrated Average Temperature of −15°F +/−2.0°F and use of TDA).

    The basic models shall be subject to the following testing instead of the corresponding defrost testing in the test procedure.

    The first part shall be a 24-hour test starting in steady state conditions and including eight hours of door opening (according ASHRAE Standard 72). The energy consumed in this test shall be recorded, ET1.

    The second part shall be a defrost cycle test starting after steady state conditions are established. The defrost cycle is initiated and terminates after the defrost cycle is complete. The energy consumed during this defrost cycle, ET2, and the duration of the defrost cycle, t DI, shall be recorded.

    Based on the measured energy consumption in these two tests, the daily energy consumption (DEC) in kWh shall be calculated as

    EN26MY17.007 Where: DEC = Daily Energy Consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh); ET1 = energy expended during the first part of the test, in kWh; ET2 = energy expended during the second part of the test, in kWh; t NDI = normalized length of defrosting time per day, in minutes; t DI = length of time of one defrosting cycle, in minutes; 7 = conversion factor of days per week; 1440 = conversion factor to adjust to a 24-hour period in minutes per day. The waiver shall continue until DOE adopts an applicable amended test procedure. IV. REQUEST FOR INTERIM WAIVER

    AHT also requests an interim waiver for its testing and rating of the basic models listed in Appendix I. Based on its merits, the petition for waiver is likely to be granted. Further, it is essential that an interim waiver be granted, as AHT plans to distribute units of the models that would be affected by the DOE rule as otherwise applicable on and after the March 28, 2017, compliance date. Without waiver relief, AHT will be at a competitive disadvantage in the market for these important products and would suffer economic hardship. AHT would be subject to requirements that clearly should not apply to such products.

    V. OTHER MANUFACTURERS

    A list of manufacturers of all other basic models distributed in commerce in the United States and known to AHT to incorporate overall design characteristic(s) similar to those found in the basic model(s) that are the subject of the petition is set forth in Appendix II.

    AHT requests expedited treatment of the Petition and Application.

    Respectfully submitted, Scott Blake Harris, John A. Hodges, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP, 1919 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 730-1313. Counsel to AHT Cooling Systems GmbH and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc. October 25, 2016. Appendix I

    The waiver and interim waiver requested herein should apply to testing and rating of the following basic models that are manufactured by AHT:

    SYDNEY ^ * MIAMI ^ * PARIS ^ * MANHATTAN ^ * MALTA ^ * IBIZA ^ *

    The models use the following model number layout:

    SYDNEY, MIAMI, etc.—Represent the name of the model platform. (^)—Represents characters in the model number that correspond to the size. (*)—Represents characters in the model number that correspond to marketing features. The * and ^ characters have no impact on the compartment function, product class, or test method. Appendix II

    The following are manufacturers of all other basic models distributed in commerce in the United States and known to AHT to incorporate overall design characteristic(s) similar to those found in the basic model(s) that are the subject of the petition for waiver.

    AMF Sales & Associates (importing LUCKDR) ARNEG USA Avanti Products LLC Beverage Air Dellfrio (importing Liebherr cabinets) Electrolux Home Products Excellence Fogel de Centroamerica S.A. Foshan City Shunde District Sansheng Electrical Manufacture Co., Ltd. Hillphoenix Hussmann Innovative DisplayWorks Inc. Jiangsu Baixue Electric Appliances Co., Ltd. Metalfrio Solutions Mexico S.A. Mimet S.A. Minus Forty Technologies Corp. MTL Cool Novum USA Ojeda USA Panasonic PREMIERE Corporation Sanden Vendo Silver King Stajac Industries Thermell Manufacturing True Manufacturing Co. Turbo-Air Vestfrost Solutions
    [FR Doc. 2017-10865 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC17-8-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC Form 73 & FERC-600); Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collections [FERC Form 73 (Oil Pipeline Service Life Data) and FERC-600 (Rules of Practice and Procedure: Complaint Procedures)] to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collections of information are due by June 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control Nos. 1902-0019 (FERC Form 73) or 1902-0180 (FERC-600) should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: [email protected], Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via telephone at 202-395-0710.

    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC17-8-000, by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], by telephone at (202) 502-8663, and by fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission previously issued a Notice in the Federal Register (82 FR 14893, 3/23/2017) requesting public comments. The Commission received no comments on the FERC Form 73 or the FERC-600 and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the information collection requirements for all collections described below with no changes to the current reporting requirements. Please note that each collection is distinct from the next.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    FERC Form 73, Oil Pipeline Service Life Data

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0019.

    Abstract: The Commission has authority over interstate oil pipelines as stated in the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 6501, et al. As part of the information necessary for the subsequent investigation and review of an oil pipeline company's proposed depreciation rates, the pipeline companies are required to provide service life data as part of their data submissions if the proposed depreciation rates are based on the remaining physical life calculations. This service life data is submitted on FERC Form 73, “Oil Pipeline Service Life Data”. The FERC Form 73 is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of Sections 306 and 402 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7155 and 7172, and Executive Order No. 12009, 42 FR 46277 (September 13, 1977).1

    1 For FERC Form 73 filing instructions and materials, please see http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/forms.asp#form73.

    The submitted data are used by the Commission to assist in the selection of appropriate service lives and book depreciation rates. Book depreciation rates are used by oil pipeline companies to compute the depreciation portion of their operating expense which is a component of their cost of service which in turn is used to determine the transportation rate to assess customers. FERC staff's recommended book depreciation rates become legally binding when issued by Commission order. These rates remain in effect until a subsequent review is requested and the outcome indicates that a modification is justified. The Commission implements these filings in 18 CFR parts 347 and 357.

    Type of Respondent: Oil Pipeline companies.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    2 Commission staff thinks that respondents to the collection are similarly situated in terms of salary and benefits. $76.50/hour is the average of the salary plus benefits for FERC employees for 2017.

    FERC Form 73, Oil Pipeline Service Life Data Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • number of
  • responses
  • Average burden & cost per response 2 Total annual burden & total annual cost Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) Oil Pipelines Undergoing Investigation or Review 3 1 3 40 hrs.; $3,060 120 hrs.; $9,180 $3,060
    FERC-600, Rules of Practice and Procedure: Complaint Procedures

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0180.

    Abstract: The information is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r; the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. 717-717w; the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA), 15 U.S.C. 3301-3432; the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 U.S.C. 2601-2645; the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), 49 U.S.C. App. 1 et. seq.; the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1301-1356; and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, (Pub. L. 109-58) 119 Stat. 594.

    For the natural gas industry, section 14(a) of the NGA 3 provides that the Commission may permit any person to file with it a statement in writing, under oath or otherwise, as it shall determine, as to any or all facts and circumstances concerning a matter which may be the subject of an investigation.

    3 15 U.S.C. 717m; accord 15 U.S.C. 717d.

    For public utilities, section 307(a) of the FPA 4 provides that the Commission may permit any person to file with it a statement in writing, under oath or otherwise, as it shall determine, as to any or all facts and circumstances concerning a matter which may be the subject of an investigation.

    4 16 U.S.C. 825f(a); accord 16 U.S.C. 824e.

    Section 215(d) (5) of the FPA 5 provides that the Commission, upon its own motion or upon complaint, may order the Electric Reliability Organization to submit to the Commission a proposed reliability standard or a modification to a reliability standard that addresses a specific matter if the Commission considers such a new or modified reliability standard appropriate to carry out this section.

    5 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5).

    For hydropower projects, section 19 of the FPA 6 provides that, as a condition of a license, jurisdiction is conferred upon the Commission, upon complaint of any person aggrieved or upon its own initiative, to exercise such regulation and control over services, rates, and charges until such time as the State shall have provided a commission or other authority for such regulation and control.

    6 16 U.S.C. 812.

    For qualifying facilities, section 210(h)(2)(B) of PURPA 7 provides that any electric utility, qualifying cogenerator, or qualifying small power producer may petition the Commission to enforce the requirements of the Commission's PURPA regulations.

    7 16 U.S.C. 824a-3(h)(2)(B).

    For oil pipelines, in Part 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act, sections 1, 6 and 15 (recodified by Pub. L. 95-473 and found as an appendix to Title 49 U.S.C.),8 the Commission is authorized to investigate the rates charged by oil pipeline companies subject to its jurisdiction. If an oil rate has been filed and allowed by the Commission to go into effect without suspension and hearing, the Commission can investigate the effective rate on its own motion or by complaint filed with the Commission. Section 13 of the ICA 9 provides that any person can file a complaint complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by an oil pipeline.

    8 49 App. U.S.C. 1 et seq (1988).

    9Id. 13.

    In Order No. 602,10 the Commission revised its regulations governing complaints filed with the Commission under the above statutes. Order No. 602 was designed to encourage and support consensual resolution of complaints, and to organize the complaint procedures so that all complaints are handled in a timely and fair manner. In order to achieve this result, the Commission revised Rule 206 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.206) to require that a complaint satisfy certain informational requirements, to require that answers be filed in a shorter, 20-day time frame, and to provide that parties may employ various types of alternative dispute resolution procedures to resolve their disputes.

    10 64 FR 17087 (April 8, 1999)

    The data in complaints filed by interested/affected parties regarding jurisdictional oil, natural gas, electric and hydropower operations, facilities, and services are used by the Commission in establishing a basis to make an initial determination regarding the merits of the complaint and whether or not to undertake further investigation. Investigations may range from whether there is undue discrimination in rates or services to questions regarding market power of regulated entities to environmental concerns. In order to make an informed determination, it is important to know the specifics underlying any oil, gas, electric, and hydropower complaint “up-front” in a timely manner and in sufficient detail to allow the Commission to act swiftly. In addition, such complaint data helps the Commission and interested parties to monitor, e.g., the market for undue discrimination or exercises of market power. The information is voluntary but submitted pursuant to prescribed filing requirements. The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR parts 343 and 385.

    Type of Respondent: Interested/affected parties regarding oil, natural gas, electric and hydropower operations, facilities, and services.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    FERC-600 (Rules of Practice and Procedure: Complaint Procedures) Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • number of
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden & cost per
  • response 2
  • Total annual
  • burden & total
  • annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) FERC-600 62 1 62 160 hrs.; $12,240 9,920 hrs.; $758,880 $12,240
    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10859 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3168-020; ER17-1636-001.

    Applicants: Great River Hydro, LLC, ArcLight Energy Marketing, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of ArcLight Energy Marketing, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5184.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1632-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Tallahassee Interconnection Contract Filing to be effective 4/20/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5072.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1633-000.

    Applicants: Georgia Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Tallahassee Interconnection Contract Filing to be effective 4/20/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5073.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1634-000.

    Applicants: Gulf Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Tallahassee Interconnection Contract Filing to be effective 4/20/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5074.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1635-000.

    Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Tallahassee Interconnection Contract Filing to be effective 4/20/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5075.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1636-000.

    Applicants: Great River Hydro, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: MBR Tariff to be effective 5/20/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5086.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1637-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PacifiCorp Energy Construction Agmt—SVEC Paisley Gen to be effective 5/8/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1638-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notices of Cancellation IFA & DSA Milliken Landfill Project SA Nos. 75 & 76 to be effective 8/9/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1639-000.

    Applicants: AEP Generation Resources Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: AEP GR Conesville Zimmer Reactive Filing RS3 to be effective 5/9/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5151.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1640-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Original Service Agreement No. 4626, Queue #AA1-135 to be effective 5/10/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5194.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10820 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos., ER17-718-000, ER17-721-000, ER17-729-000] PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Midcontinent Independent System Operator Inc.; PJM Transmission Owners; Notice of Workshop

    Take notice that the Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission plans to hold a workshop to address issues raised in the captioned dockets regarding the Targeted Market Efficiency Projects proposal. A specific date and time for the workshop will be set via supplemental notice. The workshop will be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The workshop will be transcribed. All interested parties are invited to attend.

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10822 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR17-43-000.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Maryland, Inc.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: CMD SOC Rates effective May 1 2017; Filling Type: 980.

    Filed Date: 5/10/17.

    Accession Number: 201705105066.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET5/31/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-609-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Report Filing: 2016 Operational Purchases and Sales Report.

    Filed Date: 5/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20170501-5134.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-212-000.

    Applicants: Boardwalk Storage Company, LLC.

    Description: Report Filing: 2016 Operational Purchases and Sales Report.

    Filed Date: 5/1/17.

    Accession Number: 20170501-5135.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-748-000.

    Applicants: Southeast Supply Header, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Scheduling and Curtailment Cleanup to be effective 6/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170517-5037.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-749-000.

    Applicants: Anadarko Energy Services Company, AVAD Operating, LLC.

    Description: Joint Petition of Anadarko Energy Services Company and AVAD Operating, LLC for Temporary Waivers of Capacity Release Regulations and Policies, and Request for Shortened Comment Period and Expedited Treatment.

    Filed Date: 5/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170517-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 18, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10857 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP95-408-084.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Annual Report on Sharing Profits from Base Gas Sales with Customers of Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Filed Date: 05/01/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170501-5451.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 25, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-750-000.

    Applicants: Kinetica Deepwater Express, LLC.

    Description: Kinetica Deepwater Express, LLC submits tariff filing per 154.204: Tariff Revision Filing to be effective 7/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 05/18/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170518-5054.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 30, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-751-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: Equitrans, L.P. submits tariff filing per 154.204: Equitrans' Clean Up Filing—May 2017 to be effective 6/19/2017.

    Filed Date: 05/19/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5004.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 31, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-752-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Penalty Charge Reconciliation Filing of Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Filed Date: 05/19/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5185.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 31, 2017.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10858 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-85-000.

    Applicants: Entergy New Orleans, Inc.

    Description: Supplement to February 24, 2017 Application for Approval under § 203 of the Federal Power Act of Entergy New Orleans, Inc.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5058.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-119-000.

    Applicants: Drift Sand Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization under § 203 of the Federal Power Act, Request for Shortened Notice Period, Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment of Drift Sand Wind Project, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/18/17.

    Accession Number: 20170518-5183.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1629-000.

    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: OATT 6.17 Schedule 17 re: Western New York Facilities Charge to be effective 7/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5007.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1630-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: OATT Attachment C-2 Amendment Filing to be effective 7/19/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5052.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1631-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Service Agreement No. 4604; Queue Nos. U4-028/U4-029 to be effective 12/19/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES17-19-000.

    Applicants: ITC Great Plains, LLC.

    Description: Amendment to April 27, 2017 Application of ITC Great Plains, LLC under § 204 of the Federal Power Act and part 34 of the Commission's Regulations.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5009.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ES17-20-000.

    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.

    Description: Amendment to April 27, 2017 Application of Midwest LLC under § 204 of the Federal Power Act and part 34 of the Commission's Regulations.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5010.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ES17-21-000.

    Applicants: International Transmission Company.

    Description: Amendment to April 27, 2017 Application of International Transmission Company under § 204 of the Federal Power Act and part 34 of the Commission's Regulations.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5011.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: ES17-22-000.

    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.

    Description: Amendment to April 27, 2017 Application of Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC under § 204 of the Federal Power Act and part 34 of the Commission's Regulations.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5012.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10819 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-256-000] Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice Revising Comment Date

    On May 9, 2017, the Commission issued a notice of application (May 9 Notice) in the above captioned proceeding.1 As stated in the May 9 Notice, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas), requests authorization to (i) abandon in place the Morgan City Compressor Station, which consists of one 9,100 horsepower (hp) gas-fired turbine compressor unit, a compressor building, yard and station piping, and appurtenant auxiliary facilities located in St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, (ii) abandon in place one 9,100 hp gas-fired turbine compressor unit and its compressor building at the Lafayette (also known as Youngsville) Compressor Station, located in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, and (iii) relinquish the firm design capacity associated with the facilities.

    1Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, 82 FR 22,539 (2017).

    On May 18, 2017, Texas Gas notified the Commission that the original April 26 Application had incorrectly listed the location of the Morgan City Compressor Station. The correct location of the Morgan City Compressor Station is Assumption Parish, Louisiana. To remedy this error and in accordance with section 157.6(d) of the Commission's regulations, Texas Gas states that it will make a good faith effort to re-notify all towns, communities, and local, state, and federal governments and agencies (Stakeholders) located in St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, of this error. In addition, Texas Gas states that it has made an effort to notify all such Stakeholder entities in Assumption Parish, Louisiana of the proposed abandonment activities at the Morgan City Compressor Station. To give interested parties who were not on the original landowner list an opportunity to comment, the comment date for this application has been revised, to the date listed at the end of this notice.

    This application is on file with the Commission and is open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659. Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Kathy D. Fort, Manager, Certificates & Tariffs, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, by telephone at (713) 479-8252, or by email to [email protected].

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice 2 the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.

    2 The 90-day timeframe restarts from the date of this notice.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 9, 2017.

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10821 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2211-009] Duke Energy Indiana, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Non-capacity amendment of license.

    b. Project No.: 2211-009.

    c. Date Filed: April 28, 2017.

    d. Applicant: Duke Energy Indiana, LLC.

    e. Name of Project: Markland Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Markland Locks and Dam on the Ohio River in Switzerland County, Indiana.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jeffrey G. Lineberger, Director, Water Stragety and Hydro Licensing, 526 South Church Street, Mail Code EC12Y, Charlotte, NC 28202, (704) 382-5942.

    i. FERC Contact: Steven Sachs, (202) 502-8666, [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/doc-sfiling/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2211-009.

    k. Description of Request: The applicant requests that its license be amended to allow for the replacement of much of the mechanical and electrical equipment at the project. The applicant proposes to replace each of the three turbine runners, wicket gates, main power transformer, and high voltage electrical system. The applicant also proposes to refurbish the generators and related control equipment, and install new intake and draft tube gates. The proposal would cause the authorized installed capacity of the project to drop from 64.8 to 63 megawatts, and would reduce the total maximum hydraulic capacity from 39,000 to 38,100 cubic feet per second. However, due to the efficiency of the new equipment, the estimated annual generation would increase by approximately 34.2 gigawatt-hours.

    l. Locations of the Applications: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502- 8659.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Motions to Intervene, or Protests: Anyone may submit comments, a motion to intervene, or a protest in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, motions to intervene, or protests must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, MOTION TO INTERVENE, or PROTEST as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the temporary variance request. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10823 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-120-000.

    Applicants: Viridity Energy Solutions Inc., ORIX Corporation.

    Description: Application of Viridity Energy Solutions Inc., et al. for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5244.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2331-065; ER10-2317-056; ER10-2319-056; ER10-2330-063; ER13-1351-038.

    Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, BE Alabama LLC, BE CA LLC, Florida Power Development LLC, Utility Contract Funding, L.L.C.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the J.P. Morgan Sellers.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5258.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1610-001.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Mountrail-Williams Electric Cooperative Formula Rate Ministerial Filing to be effective 7/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5220.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1629-001.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to properly locate proposed new Section 6.17 in the OATT to be effective 7/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/22/17.

    Accession Number: 20170522-5058.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1641-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren Illinois Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-05-19_SA 3016 ATXI-UEC-AIC TIA to be effective 5/19/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5201.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1642-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to AEP Depreciation Rates (ER17-829) to be effective 1/15/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5209.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1643-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Attachment AE to Modify Offer Database Roll Forward Logic to be effective 7/20/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170519-5239.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1644-000.

    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Removal of Simultaneous Submission Window to be effective 7/19/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/22/17.

    Accession Number: 20170522-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1645-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3325 WAPA & Corn Belt Power Interconnection Agreement to be effective 5/2/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/22/17.

    Accession Number: 20170522-5015.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1646-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-05-22_SA 3015 Red Lake Falls-OTP GIA (R101) to be effective 5/23/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/22/17.

    Accession Number: 20170522-5039.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1647-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-05-22_SA 2194 Elk Wind Energy-ITC GIA (H007 J443) to be effective 5/23/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/22/17.

    Accession Number: 20170522-5041.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1649-000.

    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: FPL-FMPA Service Agreement No. 274 to be effective 10/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/22/17.

    Accession Number: 20170522-5124.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 22, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10826 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 3255-014] Lyonsdale Associates, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Protests and Motions To Intervene

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Proceeding: Extension of License Term.

    b. Project No.: P-3255-014.

    c. Date Filed: January 30, 2017.

    d. Licensee: Lyonsdale Associates, LLC.

    e. Name and Location of Project: Lyonsdale Hydroelectric Project, located on the Moose River in Lewis County, New York.

    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    g. Licensee Contact Information: Mr. David Fox, Director, Cube Hydro Partners, LLC, 2 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 1330, Bethesda, MD 20814, Phone: (240) 482-2707, Email: [email protected]

    h. FERC Contact: Mr. Ashish Desai, (202) 502-8370, [email protected]

    i. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, and recommendations, using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-3255-014.

    j. Description of Proceeding: The licensee, Lyondale Associates, LLC, requests the Commission extend the term of the license, from February 28, 2023 to May 31, 2026. The licensee received a 40-year license for the project on March 22, 1983. The licensee states that in order to facilitate a basin-wide relicensing approach with several other nearby projects, it needs to extend the license term to synchronize the license expiration dates with those other projects. The licensee's request includes letters from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation supporting the license extension.

    k. This notice is available for review and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the Docket number (P-3255-014) excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the notice. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected] For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    m. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    n. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO INTERVENE as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to the request to extend the license term. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10824 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD17-8-000] Reliability Technical Conference; Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

    Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold a Technical Conference on Thursday, June 22, 2017, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. This Commissioner-led conference will be held in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The purpose of the conference is to discuss policy issues related to the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. Attached is an agenda for this event.

    The conference will be open for the public to attend. There is no fee for attendance. However, members of the public are encouraged to preregister online at: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/06-22-17-form.asp.

    Information on this event will be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web site, http://www.ferc.gov, prior to the event. The conference will also be webcast and transcribed. Anyone with Internet access who desires to listen to this event can do so by navigating to the Calendar of Events at http://www.ferc.gov and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to the webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for webcasts and offers the option of listening to the meeting via phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or call (703) 993-3100. Transcripts of the technical conference will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. at (202) 347-3700.

    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1 (866) 208-3372 (voice) or (202) 502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to (202) 208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    For more information about this conference, please contact:

    Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8368, [email protected]

    Dated: May 19, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10825 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9962-46-Region 5] Notification of a Public Meeting of the Great Lakes Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces a public meeting of the Great Lakes Advisory Board (the Board). The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) covering FY15-19 and other relevant matters. Due to unforeseen administrative circumstances, EPA is announcing this meeting with less than 15 calendar days' public notice.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 30, 2017 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Central Time, 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. An opportunity will be provided to the public to comment.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the EPA office, 77 W. Jackson, Lake Superior Conference Room, 12th Floor, Chicago, Illinois. For those unable to attend in person, this meeting will also be available telephonically. The teleconference number is (866) 299-3188 and the teleconference code is (312) 353-7948.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this meeting may contact Rita Cestaric, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by email at [email protected] General information about the Board can be found at http://glri.us/advisory/index.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Board is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463. EPA established the Board in 2013 to provide independent advice to the EPA Administrator in his capacity as Chair of the federal Great Lakes Interagency Task Force (IATF). The Board complies with the provisions of FACA.

    Availability of Meeting Materials: The agenda and other materials in support of the meeting will be available at http://glri.us/advisory/index.html.

    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Federal advisory committees provide independent advice to federal agencies. Members of the public can submit relevant comments for consideration by the Board. Input from the public to the committees will have the most impact if it provides specific information for consideration. Members of the public wishing to provide comments should contact the DFO directly.

    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at this public meeting will be limited to three minutes per speaker, subject to the number of people wanting to comment. Interested parties should contact the DFO in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by May 26, 2017 to be placed on the list of public speakers for the meeting.

    Written Statements: Written statements must be received by May 26, 2017 so that the information may be made available to the committees for consideration. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO in the following formats: One hard copy with original signature and one electronic copy via email. Commenters are requested to provide two versions of each document submitted: One each with and without signatures because only documents without signatures may be published on the GLRI Web page.

    Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact the DFO at the email address noted above, preferably at least seven days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: May 2, 2017. Tinka G. Hyde, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10932 Filed 5-23-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9033-4] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Filed 05/15/2017 Through 05/19/2017 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

    EIS No. 20170084, Final, Caltrans, CA, Interstate 10 Corridor Project, Review Period Ends: 06/26/2017, Contact: Aaron Burton 909-383-2841 EIS No. 20170085, Final, NRC, MO, Construction Permit for the Northwest Medical Isotopes Radioisotope Production Facility, Review Period Ends: 06/26/2017, Contact: David Drucker 301-415-6223 EIS No. 20170086, Final, USACE, TX, Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Review Period Ends: 06/26/2017, Contact: Janelle Stokes 409-766-3039 EIS No. 20170087, Final, HUD, CA, ADOPTION—Rim Fire Recovery, Review Period Ends: 06/26/2017, Contact: Kathleen McNulty 415-489-6644. The U.S. Housing of Urban Development/State of California Housing and Community Development is adopting the U.S. Forest Service Final EIS # 20140249, filed 08/28/2014 with EPA. The HUD/HCD was not a cooperating agency for this project. Therefore, recirculation of the document is necessary under Section 1506.3(b) of Council on Environmental Quality Regulations EIS No. 20170088, Final, USACE, HI, Ala Wai Canal Project, Flood Risk Management, Review Period Ends: 06/26/2017, Contact: Derek Chow 808-835-4026 EIS No. 20170089, Final, BLM, ID, Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Proposed Management Plan Amendment, Review Period Ends: 06/26/2017, Contact: Lisa Cresswell 208-732-7270 EIS No. 20170090, Final, HUD/HCD, CA, ADOPTION—Rim Fire Reforestation, Review Period Ends: 06/26/2017, Contact: Kathleen McNulty 415-489-6644. The U.S. Housing of Urban Development/State of California Housing and Community Development is adopting the U.S. Forest Service Final EIS # 20160088, filed 04/21/2016 with EPA. The HUD/HCD was not a cooperating agency for this project. Therefore, recirculation of the document is necessary under Section 1506.3(b) of Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Amended Notices EIS No. 20170076, Final Supplement, USACE, MO, Mississippi River Between the Ohio and Missouri Rivers (Regulating Works), Review Period Ends: 06/27/2017, Contact: Kip Runyon 314-331-8396. Revision to FR Notice Published 05/12/2017; Extending the Comment Period from 06/12/2017 to 06/27/2017 Dated: May 23, 2017. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2017-10922 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0686; FRL-9962-62-OW] EPA's Proposed Modeling Approaches for a Health-Based Benchmark for Lead in Drinking Water—Final List of Peer Reviewers, Final Charge Questions and Notice of the Public Peer Review Meeting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of final peer reviewer selection and public peer review meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the final peer reviewers assembled by Eastern Research Group, Inc., (ERG) for the external peer review of EPA's “Proposed Modeling Approaches for a Health-Based Benchmark for Lead in Drinking Water” (lead modeling report).

    DATES:

    The public peer review meeting will be held on:

    1. June 27, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., eastern standard time; and

    2. June 28, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m., eastern standard time.

    The registration deadline to attend the meeting in-person or via teleconference, and to request to make a brief oral statement at the meeting, is June 22, 2017. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions of how to register.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public peer review meeting will be held at the St. Gregory Hotel, located at 2033 M Street NW., Washington, DC. The phone number for the teleconference line will be provided to registered observers prior to the meeting.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions regarding logistics or registration for the external peer review meeting should be directed to ERG, 110 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421; by email [email protected] (subject line: Lead in Drinking Water Peer Review); or by phone: (781) 674-7362 (ask for Laurie Waite).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Registration Instructions

    To attend the peer review meeting as an observer, either in-person or via teleconference, register no later than June 22, 2017. You may register (1) online at https://projects.erg.com/conferences/peerreview/register-lead-drinkwater.htm; (2) by sending an email to [email protected] (subject line: Lead in Drinking Water Peer Review Meeting) and include your name, title and affiliation, full address, email and phone number, or (3) by phone at (781) 674-7362 (ask for Laurie Waite). Please indicate which day(s) you plan to attend the meeting and whether you plan to attend the meeting via teleconference or in-person. Space is limited and registrations will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. There will be a limited amount of time for oral statements from the public at the beginning of the peer review meeting on the first day. If you wish to make an oral statement during the meeting, you must notify ERG of your request to speak by registering no later than June 22, 2017. ERG will accept requests to make oral statements on a first-come, first-served basis, and may limit the amount of time for each speaker as well as the number of speakers due to time constraints. ERG will notify speakers of specific time limits for their oral statements prior to the meeting.

    II. Information on the Draft Lead Modeling Report and Peer Review Charge Questions

    EPA announced the release of the draft lead modeling report and draft peer review charge questions for purposes of public comment on January 19, 2017, in the Federal Register (82 FR 6546). The original 45-day public comment period ended on March 6, 2017, but the public comment period was extended 30 days to April 5, 2017, due to stakeholders' request. EPA will consider peer reviewer and public comments when finalizing the draft lead modeling report. EPA also obtained public comment on the draft peer review charge questions. The final charge questions, the draft lead modeling report and public comments submitted during the public comment period may be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov. (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0686).

    III. Final List of Peer Reviewers

    Consistent with guidelines for the peer review of highly influential scientific assessments, EPA tasked ERG, a contractor, to assemble a panel of experts to evaluate the draft lead modeling report. ERG received 14 nominations in response to EPA's January 19, 2017, Federal Register notice (82 FR 6546) requesting nominations and identified over 40 additional potential candidates through its own search process. From this set, a total of 26 experts responded to ERG to indicate their interest in and qualifications for this review. After evaluating these 26 individuals against the selection criteria described in the Federal Register notice